From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7CE1F47D for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 10:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=haller-berlin.de header.i=@haller-berlin.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=kas202302241129 header.b=LABf1u8V; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230024AbjCCK5W (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:57:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39126 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230254AbjCCK5K (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:57:10 -0500 Received: from dd36226.kasserver.com (dd36226.kasserver.com [85.13.153.21]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDFC54ECDE for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 02:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.42.163] (127-98-142-46.pool.kielnet.net [46.142.98.127]) by dd36226.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B51063C0FAA; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:57:05 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=haller-berlin.de; s=kas202302241129; t=1677841025; bh=SA/rdPswUq9OugJtO/SscRJISX29E9aM9glz5mziYaw=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LABf1u8VMpatlI541fypBa6BGiKiyiKypY52pm3xc0L7s0bVdSc6mm+BFjmPWuUep HmsEZ0GH69luw6c3faLCqenme8sGwlX2fe5/wF2FdEQYFfpIvC0c14A6WLU7hyFtMG Is+aqEmyvP32UJVux/h/1dKJpNo6IbadwEWbgNHAuKub5aMe6kDlAhmJOdhC9tNt00 oHH2VRyK6UFMcbS1/sxbMMPUu5quXE0+8jxSmdu7aYlO4e/J/UcCHijRBVLFBe5FMo OHyxjjBVcYrMhks6UWDHS054WXu1KF/1Cg2tkWjcrQ8Xz4UmbJzj26IZNxqZvVh7yV vqxErzSjgw8XA== Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 11:57:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: When exactly should REBASE_HEAD exist? Content-Language: de-DE, en-US From: Stefan Haller To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, git@vger.kernel.org References: <961e68d7-5f43-c385-10fa-455b8e2f32d0@haller-berlin.de> <374f83c2-7bf0-38be-26ae-de28340c37d2@dunelm.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spamd-Bar: - Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 02.03.23 21:27, Stefan Haller wrote: > On 02.03.23 11:19, Phillip Wood wrote: >> On 28/02/2023 12:55, Stefan Haller wrote: >>> The reason why I am asking this is: I'm using lazygit, which, during >>> interactive rebases, shows a combined view of the real commits that were >>> already applied, and the remaining commits that are yet to be applied >>> (it gets these by parsing rebase-merge/git-rebase-todo); something like >>> this, when I set the 2nd commit to "edit": >>> >>>    pick   4th commit >>>    pick   3rd commit >>>           2nd commit  <-- YOU ARE HERE >>>           1st commit >>> >>> This is great, but assuming that the 2nd commit conflicted, currently >>> the display looks like this: >>> >>>    pick   4th commit >>>    pick   3rd commit >>>           1st commit  <-- YOU ARE HERE >>> >>> I would like to extend this to also show a "fake entry" for the commit >>> that conflicted, if there is one. REBASE_HEAD is perfect for this, >>> except that I need a way to distinguish whether it was applied already >>> or not. >> >> Can you check the index for conflicts when the rebase stops? > > I could do that, but then the fake entry would go away as soon as I have > staged all conflict resolutions. I would find it useful for it to stay > visible in that case, until I continue the rebase. It seems that I can get close by checking whether the file .git/rebase-merge/amend exists. If it does, the current patch was applied already, and I don't show the fake entry. If it doesn't, we still need to commit the changes from REBASE-HEAD, so it makes sense to show it in the list. Does this sound like a reasonable approach? I must admit that the code in sequencer.c is too complex for me to tell at a glance whether there are situations where this heuristic would do the wrong thing. -Stefan