Junio C Hamano wrote:
> [...]

Will fix those.

> I suspect doing 6/6 before this patch may make more sense.

Yeah, I'd done it like that in the original (early preview thing).
Allow me to explain why I flipped the ordering.

The problem I am facing is that 6/6 causes very major breakages, and
5/6 attempts to minimize that fallout and make life for 6/6 easier.
The problem with putting this patch (and the rebase -i) after those
two is simple: it calls set_reflog_action, but never explicitly
indicates that it wants to set the reflog message for checkout.  As a
result, the reflog messages are merely accidental and will look like:

  rebase -i (start)

in both the critical patches (5/6 and 6/6).  This was an absolute
debugging disaster for me, and I didn't know what wt-status was trying
to tell me with its cryptic "detached HEAD to" and "detached HEAD
from" messages.

Makes sense?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to