From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: remove the rebase.useBuiltin setting
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:46:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqva1nbeno.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190213142209.8226-1-avarab@gmail.com> ("Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"'s message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:22:09 +0100")
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
> Remove the rebase.useBuiltin setting, which was added as an escape
> hatch to disable the builtin version of rebase first released with Git
> 2.20.
> ...
>> This patch breaks the test suite (with these two new tests) under
>> GIT_TEST_REBASE_USE_BUILTIN=false. So a 2.21.0-rc0 regression.
>>
>> It would have been better to raise this before the rc period, but I just
>> noticed this now, but we can now:
>>
>> 1. Skip the test under that mode
>> 2. Fix the shell code to do the same thing
>> 3. Just remove the shell code & GIT_TEST_REBASE_USE_BUILTIN=false mode
>>
>> Maybe we should just do #3. The reason for the escape hatch was in case
>> we had bugs, and now we've had a full release cycle, but maybe that's
>> too early...
If a new feature is added to the built-in version, I do not think it
is a good use of our time to backport it to the scripted version, if
only to make the USE_BUILTIN=false test pass, especially when the
problematic thing is a fringe feature, lack of which would not
affect the real users too much.
So I do agree that #2 is a bad choice.
However, it is way too late in the cycle to say that we will ship
without the escape hatch for the upcoming release, so #3 is a non
starter. And you are reading too much into a full release cycle,
which is merely less than 1k commits and a bit short of 3 months.
It would however be long enough to declare victory _immediately
after_ the upcoming release and start the next cycle without the
escape hatch. At that point we'd be committed to maintain only the
built-in version.
The more important every-day features should still be covered by
tests, if the scripted ones are to be kept as escape hatch. So to
me #1 looks like the only sensible choice at this point, if you want
to see a test cycle with USE_BUILTIN=false to fully pass (i.e. by
skipping the ones that are known not to pass).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-28 10:26 [PATCH] rebase -x: sanity check command Phillip Wood
2019-01-28 18:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-28 21:56 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-29 11:40 ` Phillip Wood
2019-01-29 15:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-28 22:03 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-29 11:34 ` Phillip Wood
2019-01-29 15:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-01-29 18:43 ` [PATCH v2] " Phillip Wood
2019-01-29 21:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-01-30 12:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-02-13 13:31 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-13 14:22 ` [PATCH] rebase: remove the rebase.useBuiltin setting Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-13 16:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-02-13 20:46 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-02-13 21:49 ` [PATCH] rebase: fix regression in rebase.useBuiltin=false test mode Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-02-13 23:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-14 16:12 ` Phillip Wood
2019-03-14 13:24 ` [PATCH v2] rebase: remove the rebase.useBuiltin setting Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-03-14 14:58 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-14 15:27 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-03-15 13:45 ` [PATCH v3] " Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-03-15 15:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-03-15 16:11 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-03-18 6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-18 10:19 ` Phillip Wood
2019-03-18 11:01 ` [PATCH v4] " Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2019-03-19 10:21 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-23 15:23 ` [PATCH] rebase: remove transitory rebase.useBuiltin setting & env Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-23 20:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-23 20:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqva1nbeno.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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).