Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Maybe we should add the > line "Not for end user interactive use" to both descriptions? We can > get that double-underscore if you really want, but it'd stick out like > a sore thumb since we can't change create. Yeah, good point about the __name. It was a mistak

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: > "create" is not advertised very widely, but "store" is too close to > what is already familiar to the people "save" and we really do not > want to confuse them. "store -m message commit" sounds as if you > are creating a stash to apply to the given $commit. In the store se

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy writes: > One benefit would be to avoid triggering rebuild (and editor reload) by > keeping the timestamps intact. But I agree it's probably not worth the > effort (and definitely isn't in the scope of this series). It isn't in the scope, of course. If rebase were done right, the s

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Especially I did not check if there are >> still undesirable data loss behaviour in corner cases that people >> were worried about in the discussion. > > Check the tests. What am I missing? > >>In the longer term, it is unmaintainable t

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Matthieu Moy
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Especially I did not check if there are >> still undesirable data loss behaviour in corner cases that people >> were worried about in the discussion. > > Check the tests. What am I missing? I didn't do a thorough check, but my earlier comm

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-13 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: > Especially I did not check if there are > still undesirable data loss behaviour in corner cases that people > were worried about in the discussion. Check the tests. What am I missing? >In the longer term, it is unmaintainable to make such users (like >this new cod

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Minor changes since v2 in response to reviews by Junio and Eric > Sunshine. > > Should be ready to merge soon. That, and the "completed" on the Subject line are not for you to decide, I would have to say ;-) Overall the patches look cleanly done, but I did not car

[PATCH v3 0/7] rebase.autostash completed

2013-05-12 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Minor changes since v2 in response to reviews by Junio and Eric Sunshine. Should be ready to merge soon. Ramkumar Ramachandra (7): am: tighten a conditional that checks for $dotest rebase -i: don't error out if $state_dir already exists rebase: prepare to do generic housekeeping am: retur