Hi Junio,

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Earlier, Peff sent this patch (slightly buried in a discussion) on
> "rebase -i" in <20160729223134.ga22...@sigill.intra.peff.net>.
> > Subject: rebase-interactive: drop early check for valid ident
> >
> > Since the very inception of interactive-rebase in 1b1dce4
> > (Teach rebase an interactive mode, 2007-06-25), there has
> > been a preemptive check, before looking at any commits, to
> > see whether the user has a valid name/email combination.
> >
> > This is convenient, because it means that we abort the
> > operation before even beginning (rather than just
> > complaining that we are unable to pick a particular commit).
> >
> > However, it does the wrong thing when the rebase does not
> > actually need to generate any new commits (e.g., a
> > fast-forward with no commits to pick, or one where the base
> > stays the same, and we just pick the same commits without
> > rewriting anything). In this case it may complain about the
> > lack of ident, even though one would not be needed to
> > complete the operation.
> >
> > This may seem like mere nit-picking, but because interactive
> > rebase underlies the "preserve-merges" rebase, somebody who
> > has set "pull.rebase" to "preserve" cannot make even a
> > fast-forward pull without a valid ident, as we bail before
> > even realizing the fast-forward nature.
> >
> > This commit drops the extra ident check entirely. This means
> > we rely on individual commands that generate commit objects
> > to complain. So we will continue to notice and prevent cases
> > that actually do create commits, but with one important
> > difference: we fail while actually executing the "pick"
> > operations, and leave the rebase in a conflicted, half-done
> > state.
> >
> > In some ways this is less convenient, but in some ways it is
> > more so; the user can then manually commit or even "git
> > rebase --continue" after setting up their ident (or
> > providing it as a one-off on the command line).
> >
> > Reported-by: Dakota Hawkins <dakotahawk...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <p...@peff.net>
> > ---
> To which, I responded (referring to the last paragraph):
>     Yup, that is the controvercial bit, and I suspect Dscho's original
>     was siding for the "set up ident first, as you will need it anyway
>     eventually", so I'll let others with viewpoints different from us to
>     chime in first before picking it up.
> Do you have a preference either way to help us decide if we want to
> take this change or not?

I have no strong preference. I guess that it does not hurt to go with the
patch, and it would probably help in a few cases.


Reply via email to