On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:17 AM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> If one wants to emulate this with the versions of Git that are
> currently deployed, would it be sufficient to insert "exec false"
> instead of "break"?
>
> The reason I am asking is *not* to imply that we do not need this
> new feature. It is because I vaguely recall seeing a request to add
> 'pause' to the insn set and "exec false" was mentioned as a more
> general alternative long time ago. I am trying to see if this is a
> recurring request/wish, because it would reinforce that this new
> feature would be a good addition if that is the case.
>
> I suspect that "exec false" would give a message that looks like a
> complaint ("'false' failed so we are giving you control back to fix
> things" or something like that), and having a dedicated way to pause
> the execution without alarming the user is a good idea.
>
> I think the earlier request asked for 'pause' (I didn't dig the list
> archive very carefully, though), and 'stop' may also be a possible
> verb, but I tend to agree with this patch that 'break' is probably
> the best choice, simply because it begins with 'b' in the
> abbreviated form, a letter that is not yet used by others (unlike
> 'pause' or 'stop' that would want 'p' and 's' that are already
> taken)..
>
Yea. I use "exec false" all the time for this purpose, but it's a bit
confusing, and it does cause rebase to indicate that a command failed.
I think adding a builtin command to do this is a good idea, and I
think break is a reasonable verb, (especially considering the
shorthand "b").
Regards,
Jake
