Phillip Wood <[email protected]> writes: >>> I wonder if users understand that '-x' is "an interctive rebase". >>> The documentation can read both ways, and one of these may want to >>> be clarified. >>> >>> -x <cmd>, --exec <cmd> >>> ... >>> This uses the --interactive machinery internally, but it can >>> be run without an explicit --interactive. >>> >>> Is it saying that use of interactive machinery is an impelementation >>> detail the users should not concern themselves (in which case, the >>> message given to "die()" above is misleading---not a new problem >>> with this patch, though)? Is it saying "-x" makes it plenty clear >>> that the user wants interactive behaviour, so the users do not need >>> to spell out --interactive in order to ask for it (in which case, >>> "die()" message is fine, but "... internally, but ..." is >>> misleading)? >> >> Hmm. What would you think about: >> >> die(_("--reschedule-failed-exec requires --exec or >> --interactive"));
I was leaning towards admitting that the use of the interactive machinery in "-x" is not merely an implementation detail and fixing the documentation, leaving the die() message in the patch as-is. But ... > I was wondering about requiring --exec with --reschedule-failed-exec > rather than checking is_interactive() as that would be easier to > understand. ... I find this a reasonable way to think about the issue. The option only matters when we are doing "--exec". And the usual convenience measure we'd use, i.e. with --reschedule-failed-exec we consider that we are implicitly in --exec mode, would not work because there is no default "command" to be executed. > One potential problem is if someone has an alias that > always sets --reschedule-failed-exec but does not always add --exec to > the command line. Such a use case would be hitting this die() already without this topic, wouldn't it? In which case we can say there is no "someone" with such an alias.
