Remi Galan Alfonso <remi.galan-alfo...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>> Ideally, I think we should do a sanity check before starting the rebase, >> and error out if we encounter an invalid command, a command that should >> be followed by a valid sha1 and does not, ... >> >> But currently, we do the verification while applying commands, and I >> don't think there's anything really helpful to do if we encounter a >> "drop this-is-not-a-sha1" command. > > While I agree that doing a sanity check before starting the rebase is > a better idea, it would not be logic to do so only for the 'drop' > command, it should be done for all of the various commands (as you > said, checking if the commands are valid, checking if the SHA-1 > following the command is valid if it was expecting one...). Yes, that's what I had in mind. > However I think that it should be in a different patch, changing the > whole checking system of rebase is not directly linked to the idea of > the 'drop' command. Agreed. Discussions on this list often lead to "Oh, BTW, shall we do XYZ also?", but you shouldn't take this kind of remark as blocking (as long as XYZ is not incompatible with your patch, which is the case here). -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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
