From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B43B20A1E for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:08:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728829AbeLJWII (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:08:08 -0500 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:13322 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728786AbeLJWII (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:08:08 -0500 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43DHJQ61SCz5tlC; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:08:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E4A20B4; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:08:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] rebase: offer to reschedule failed exec commands automatically To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano References: From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:08:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 10.12.18 um 20:04 schrieb Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget: > The idea was brought up by Paul Morelle. > > To be honest, this idea of rescheduling a failed exec makes so much sense > that I wish we had done this from the get-go. The status quo was actually not that bad a decision, because it made 'x false' as a substitute for 'break' very convenient. But now that we have a real 'break', I'm very much in favor of flipping the behavior over to rescheduling. (I'm actually not a user of the feature, but the proposed behavior is so compellingly logical.) -- Hannes