list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Johannes Schindelin <>
To: Elijah Newren <>
Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <>,
	Git Mailing List <>,
	Philip Oakley <>,
	Phillip Wood <>
Subject: unifying sequencer's options persisting, was Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:48:25 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>


On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, Elijah Newren wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:13 AM Johannes Schindelin
> <> wrote:
> > I'll allow myself one tangent: the subject of the sequencer's Unix
> > shell script heritage seems to come up with an increasing frequency,
> > in particular the awful "let's write out one file per setting"
> > strategy.
> >
> > I would _love_ for `save_opts()` to write a JSON instead (or an INI
> > via the `git_config_*()` family of functions, as is done already by
> > the cherry-pick/revert stuff), now that we no longer have any shell
> > script backend (apart from `--preserve-merges`, but that one is on its
> > way out anyway).
> >
> > The one thing that concerns me with this idea is that I know for a
> > fact that some enterprisey users play games with those files inside
> > `<GIT_DIR>/rebase-merge` that should be considered internal
> > implementation details. Not sure how to deprecate that properly, I
> > don't think we have a sane way to detect whether users rely on these
> > implementation details other than breaking their expectations, which
> > is not really a gentle way to ask them to update their scripts.
> Ooh, I'm glad you took this tangent.  May I follow it for a second?
> I'd really, really like this too, for three reasons:
> 1) I constantly get confused about the massive duplication and
> difference in control structures and which ones affect which type of
> operations in sequencer.c.  Having them both use an ini-file would
> allow us to remove lots of that duplication.  I'm sure there'll still
> be some rebase-specific or cherry-pick-specific options, but we don't
> need a separate parallel structure for every piece of config.
> 2) In my merge-ort optimization work, rebasing 35 commits in linux.git
> across a massive set of 26K upstream renames has dropped rename
> detection time from the top spot.  And it also dropped several other
> things in the merge machinery from their spots as well.  Do you know
> what's the slowest now?  Wasted time from sequencer.c: the unnecessary
> process forking and all the useless disk writing (which I suspect is
> mostly updating the index and working directory but also writing all
> the individual control files under .git/rebase-merge/).  And this
> stuff from sequencer.c is not just barely the slowest part, it's the
> slowest by a wide margin.
> 3) I also want to allow cherry-picking or rebasing branches that
> aren't even checked out (assuming no conflicts are triggered;
> otherwise an error can be shown with the user asked to repeat with the
> operation connected to an active working directory).  For such an
> operation, the difference between "cherry-pick" and "rebase" is nearly
> irrelevant so you'd expect the code to be the same; every time I look
> at the code, though, it seems that the control structures are
> separating these two types of operations in more areas than just the
> reading and writing of the config.

Excellent, we're in agreement, then.

The remaining question is: how do we want to go about it? Do we just want
to codify the notion that these are internal details that are nobody's
business, and if they are using the exact file system layout of the
current sequencer, then it's their responsibility to adapt?


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-31 13:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-26  7:16 [PATCH] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-26 12:27 ` Philip Oakley
2021-03-26 15:12   ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-28  1:30     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-29  9:23 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-29 20:52   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-29 21:25   ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-30  2:09 ` [PATCH v2] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-30 10:13   ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-03-30 18:47     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-30 20:16       ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 17:36         ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-31 17:52           ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 18:01         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-01 16:31           ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-30 19:37     ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-31 13:48       ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2021-04-02 11:28         ` unifying sequencer's options persisting, was " Phillip Wood
2021-04-02 13:10           ` Phillip Wood
2021-04-02 21:01           ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-02 22:18             ` Elijah Newren
2021-04-02 22:27               ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-08  2:40                 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-04-08 17:45                   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-04-08 19:58                   ` Christian Couder
2021-04-09 13:53                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-03-31  6:52   ` [PATCH v3] " Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
2021-03-31 14:38     ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-04-02 11:40 unifying sequencer's options persisting, was Re: [PATCH v2] " Gabriel Young

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='unifying sequencer'\''s options persisting, was Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: fix edit handling for cherry-pick and revert messages' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).