Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> writes:
> +/* We will introduce the 'interactive rebase' mode later */
> +#define IS_REBASE_I() 0
I do not see a point in naming this all caps. The use site would be
a lot more pleasant to read when the reader does not have to care if
this is implemented as a preprocessor macro or a helper function.
> @@ -377,20 +387,72 @@ static int is_index_unchanged(void)
> return !hashcmp(active_cache_tree->sha1,
> head_commit->tree->object.oid.hash);
> }
>
> +static char **read_author_script(void)
> +{
> + struct strbuf script = STRBUF_INIT;
> + int i, count = 0;
> + char *p, *p2, **env;
> + size_t env_size;
> +
> + if (strbuf_read_file(&script, rebase_path_author_script(), 256) <= 0)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + for (p = script.buf; *p; p++)
> + if (skip_prefix(p, "'\\\\''", (const char **)&p2))
> + strbuf_splice(&script, p - script.buf, p2 - p, "'", 1);
> + else if (*p == '\'')
> + strbuf_splice(&script, p-- - script.buf, 1, "", 0);
> + else if (*p == '\n') {
> + *p = '\0';
> + count++;
> + }
Hmph. What is this loop doing? Is it decoding a sq-quoted buffer
or something? Don't we have a helper function to do that?
> + env_size = (count + 1) * sizeof(*env);
> + strbuf_grow(&script, env_size);
> + memmove(script.buf + env_size, script.buf, script.len);
> + p = script.buf + env_size;
> + env = (char **)strbuf_detach(&script, NULL);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + env[i] = p;
> + p += strlen(p) + 1;
> + }
> + env[count] = NULL;
> +
> + return env;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * If we are cherry-pick, and if the merge did not result in
> * hand-editing, we will hit this commit and inherit the original
> * author date and name.
> * If we are revert, or if our cherry-pick results in a hand merge,
> - * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that.
> + * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that
> + * (except, of course, while running an interactive rebase).
> */
The added "(except, ...)" reads as if "even if we are reverting, if
that is done as part of an interactive rebase, the authorship rule
for a revert does not apply".
If that is not what you meant, i.e. if you did not mean to imply
that "rebase -i" doing a revert is a normal thing, this needs to be
rephrased to avoid the misinterpretation.
