Re: [PATCH 1/3] rebase: introduce --reschedule-failed-exec

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Elijah,

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:18 PM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1195,6 +1201,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >                 break;
> >         }
> >
> > +       if (options.reschedule_failed_exec && !is_interactive(&options))
> > +               die(_("--reschedule-failed-exec requires an interactive rebase"));
> > +
> 
> I was surprised at first that you checked is_interactive() rather than
> checking for --exec being specified.  But I guess this is because users
> can manually specify 'exec' lines.

Indeed, that is exactly the reason.

> What if the user specifies an implicitly interactive rebase (i.e. no
> editing of the todo list, such as with --rebase-merges or
> --keep-empty, or soon --strategy or --strategy-option) and also
> doesn't specify --exec?

Then the todo list won't have any `exec` lines, and the flag is irrelevant
(but does not do any harm).

... except in the case that the rebase fails at some stage, the user edits
the todo list with `git rebase --edit-todo` and inserts an `exec` line.

So I would contend that it still makes sense to allow that flag in those
cases, i.e. whenever the user asked for the interactive backend.

> > @@ -534,6 +545,9 @@ then
> >         #       git-rebase.txt caveats with "unless you know what you are doing"
> >         test -n "$rebase_merges" &&
> >                 die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine '--preserve-merges' with '--rebase-merges'")"
> > +
> > +       test -n "$reschedule_failed_exec" &&
> > +               die "$(gettext "error: cannot combine '--preserve-merges' with '--reschedule-failed-exec'")"
> >  fi
> >
> >  if test -n "$rebase_merges"
> 
> In the builtin rebase, you checked that --reschedule-failed-exec had
> to be used with an interactive rebase.  Here in the legacy rebase you
> have no such check at all.
> 
> Not sure if that's an oversight, or if we're at the point where we
> just start intentionally allowing legacy rebase to lag and soon throw
> it out.  (When do we get to that point?)

Good point. My thinking was that the legacy rebase does not matter all
that much anymore, I would expect that we get rid of it in v2.21.0.

But you're right, I should not intentionally diverge the functionality out
of sheer laziness.

Will fix.

> The rest of the patch looks good to me.

Thanks!
Dscho