On 26/04/18 10:51, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> On 25/04/18 13:48, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: >>> >>>> On 23/04/18 19:11, Stefan Beller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin >>>>> <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>>>> Eric Sunshine pointed out that I had such a commit message in >>>>>> https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cRrS0_nYJJY=o6cbov630snqhpv5qgrqdd8mw-syzn...@mail.gmail.com/ >>>>>> and I went on a hunt to figure out how the heck this happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> Turns out that if there is a fixup/squash chain where the *last* >>>>>> command fails with merge conflicts, and we either --skip ahead >>>>>> or resolve the conflict to a clean tree and then --continue, our >>>>>> code does not do a final cleanup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to my initial gut feeling, this bug was not introduced >>>>>> by my rewrite in C of the core parts of rebase -i, but it looks >>>>>> to me as if that bug was with us for a very long time (at least >>>>>> the --skip part). >>>>>> >>>>>> The developer (read: user of rebase -i) in me says that we would >>>>>> want to fast-track this, but the author of rebase -i in me says >>>>>> that we should be cautious and cook this in `next` for a while. >>>>> >>>>> I looked through the patches again and think this series is good >>>>> to go. >>>> >>>> I've just realized I commented on an outdated version as the new >>>> version was posted there rather than as a reply to v1. I've just >>>> looked through it and I'm not sure it addresses the unnecessary >>>> editing of the commit message of the previous commit if a single >>>> squash command is skipped as outlined in >>>> https://public-inbox.org/git/b6512eae-e214-9699-4d69-77117a0da...@talktalk.net/ >>> >>> I have not forgotten about this! I simply did not find the time yet, >>> is all... >> >> I wondered if that was the case but I wanted to check as I wasn't sure >> if you'd seen the original message as it was on an obsolete version of >> the series >> >>> The patch series still has not been merged to `next`, but I plan on >>> working on your suggested changes as an add-on commit anyway. I am not >>> quite sure yet how I want to handle the "avoid running commit for the >>> first fixup/squash in the series" problem, but I think we will have to >>> add *yet another* file that is written (in the "we already have >>> comments in the commit message" conditional block in >>> error_failed_squash())... >> >> I wonder if creating the file in update_squash_messages() rather than >> error_failed_squash() would be a better approach as then it is easy to >> only create rebase_path_amend_type() when there has already been a >> squash or fixup. The file is removed in the loop that picks commits in >> pick_commits() so it would be cleaned up at the beginning of the next >> pick if it's not needed. > > That would be a good idea in general, but I think we have to take care of > the following scenario: > > pick <- succeeds > squash <- succeeds > fixup <- fails, will be skipped > > In this case, we do need to open the editor. But in this scenario, we do > not: > > pick <- succeeds > fixup <- succeeds > squash <- fails, will be skipped > > If we write the amend-type file in update_squash_messages(), we would > write "squash" into it in both cases. My hope was to somehow avoid that.
Good point, I'd not thought of that > I just realized that the current iteration does not fulfill that goal, as > the message-fixup file would be long gone by the time > error_failed_squash() was called in the latter example. > > Also, I realized something else: my previous work-around for the > GETTEXT_POISON case (where I fail gently when a commit message does not > contain the "This is a combination of #<count> commits" count in ASCII) > would be much superior if it simply would not abuse the comment in the > commit message, but had a robust, non-l18ned way to count the fixup/squash > commits. > > My current thinking is to reconcile both problems by shunning the > amend-type and instead just record the sequence of fixup/squash commits > that went into HEAD, in a new file, say, current-fixups. > > To answer the question how many commit messages are combined, I then > simply need to count the lines in that file. > > To answer the question whether a skipped fixup/squash requires the editor > to be launched, I can simply look whether there is a "squash" line > (ignoring the last line). That sounds like a good plan, keeping count of the fixup/squash without having to parse the last message is a good idea. > Oh, and I also forgot to test whether this is the "final fixup". If we are > skipping a "fixup" in the middle of a chain, there is no need to clean the > commit message to begin with. > > This will take a while... ;-) Yes, it sounds like quite a bit of work, but it will be a very worthwhile improvement. Thanks Phillip > Ciao, > Dscho >
