Hi Liam,
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017, Liam Beguin wrote:
> On 16/06/17 09:56 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Liam Beguin wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/06/17 09:08 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> >>> index a697906d463..a0e020dab09 100644
> >>> --- a/sequencer.c
> >>> +++ b/sequencer.c
> >>> @@ -2640,3 +2640,110 @@ int check_todo_list(void)
> >>>
> >>> return res;
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> +/* skip picking commits whose parents are unchanged */
> >>> +int skip_unnecessary_picks(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const char *todo_file = rebase_path_todo();
> >>> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> >>> + struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
> >>> + struct object_id onto_oid, *oid = &onto_oid, *parent_oid;
> >>> + int fd, i;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!read_oneliner(&buf, rebase_path_onto(), 0))
> >>> + return error(_("could not read 'onto'"));
> >>> + if (get_sha1(buf.buf, onto_oid.hash)) {
> >>
> >> I missed this last time but we could also replace `get_sha1` with
> >> `get_oid`
> >
> > Good point!
> >
> > I replaced this locally and force-pushed, but there is actually little
> > chance of this patch series being integrated in a form with which I
> > would be comfortable.
>
> Is there any chance of this moving forward? I was hoping to resend my
> path to abbreviate command names on top of this.
We are at an impasse right now.
Junio wants me to change this code:
revs.pretty_given = 1;
git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
if (!format || !*format) {
free(format);
format = xstrdup("%s");
}
get_commit_format(format, &revs);
free(format);
pp.fmt = revs.commit_format;
pp.output_encoding = get_log_output_encoding();
if (setup_revisions(argc, argv, &revs, NULL) > 1)
...
which is reasonably compile-time safe, to something like this:
struct strbuf userformat = STRBUF_INIT;
struct argv_array args = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
...
for (i = 0; i < argc; i++)
argv_array_push(&args, argv[i]);
git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
if (!format || !*format)
argv_array_push(&args, "--format=%s");
else {
strbuf_addf(&userformat, "--format=%s", format);
argv_array_push(&args, userformat.buf);
}
if (setup_revisions(args.argc, args.argv, &revs, NULL) > 1)
...
argv_array_clear(&args);
strbuf_release(&userformat);
which is not compile-time safe, harder to read, sloppy coding in my book.
The reason for this suggestion is that one of the revision machinery's
implementation details is an ugly little semi-secret: the pretty-printing
machinery uses a global state, and that is why we need the "pretty_given"
flag in the first place.
Junio thinks that it would be better to not use the pretty_given flag in
this patch series. I disagree: It would be better to use the pretty_given
flag, also as a good motivator to work on removing the global state in the
pretty-printing machinery.
Junio wants to strong-arm me into accepting authorship for this sloppy
coding, and I simply won't do it.
That's why we are at an impasse right now.
I am really, really sorry that this affects your patch series, as I had
not foreseen Junio's insistence on the sloppy coding when I suggested that
you rebase your work on top of my patch series. I just was really
unprepared for this contention, and I am still surprised/shocked that this
is even an issue up for discussion.
Be that as it may, I see that this is a very bad experience for a
motivated contributor such as yourself. I am very sorry about that!
So it may actually be better for you to go forward with your original
patch series targeting git-rebase--interactive.sh.
My apologies,
Dscho
