Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] rebase: Implement --merge via git-rebase--interactive




Hi Elijah

On 10/06/18 02:14, Elijah Newren wrote:
> 
> Hi Dscho,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>>> index 451252c173..28d1658d7a 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
>>> @@ -275,6 +275,10 @@ branch on top of the <upstream> branch.  Because of this, when a merge
>>>  conflict happens, the side reported as 'ours' is the so-far rebased
>>>  series, starting with <upstream>, and 'theirs' is the working branch.  In
>>>  other words, the sides are swapped.
>>> ++
>>> +This uses the `--interactive` machinery internally, and as such,
>>> +anything that is incompatible with --interactive is incompatible
>>> +with this option.
>>
>> I am not sure I like this change, as it describes an implementation detail
>> that users should neither know, nor care about, nor rely on.
> 
> Let me back up for just a second to see if I can point out the real
> problem I'm trying to address here, which you may have a better
> solution for.  What should happen if a user runs
>    git rebase --merge --whitespace=fix
> ?
> 
> git currently silently ignores the --whitepsace=fix argument, leaving
> the whitespace damage present at the end of the rebase.  Same goes for
> --interactive combined with any am-specific options  (Fix proposed at
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180607050654.19663-2-newren@xxxxxxxxx/).
> This silent ignoring of some options depending on which other options
> were specified has caused me problems in the past.
> 
> So, while I totally agree with you that users shouldn't need to know
> implementation details, they do need to know how to use commands and
> which options go well together and which are mutually incompatible.
> Do you have any suggestions on alternate wording that would convey the
> sets of mutually incompatible options without talking about
> implementation details?  Would you rather only address that in the
> code and not mention it in the documentation?
> 
> See also https://public-inbox.org/git/20180607050654.19663-1-newren@xxxxxxxxx/,
> which proposes testcases for these incompatibility sets.
> 
> 
>>> diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
>>> index 1f2401f702..dcc4a26a78 100644
>>> --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh
>>> +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
>>> @@ -885,7 +885,10 @@ init_basic_state () {
>>>       mkdir -p "$state_dir" || die "$(eval_gettext "Could not create temporary \$state_dir")"
>>>       rm -f "$(git rev-parse --git-path REBASE_HEAD)"
>>>
>>> -     : > "$state_dir"/interactive || die "$(gettext "Could not mark as interactive")"
>>> +     if test -n "$actually_interactive"
>>> +     then
>>> +             : > "$state_dir"/interactive || die "$(gettext "Could not mark as interactive")"
>>> +     fi
>>
>> Do we really care at this stage? IOW what breaks if we still write that
>> file, even in --merge mode?
> 
> Two things will change if we do that:
>   * bash prompt will be different for those using git-prompt.sh
> (REBASE-m vs. REBASE-i).
>   * git-status output is no longer the same ('rebase in progress' vs.
> 'interactive rebase in progress...last command done:...pick 0dea123 my
> wonderful commit')
> 
> I don't think the prompt is a big deal.  The status output might not
> be either, but showing the "last command done" may be weird to someone
> that never saw or edited a list of commands.  (Then again, that same
> argument could be made for users of --exec, --rebase-merges, or
> --keep-empty without an explicit --interactive)
> 
> Opinions on whether these two difference matter?  If others don't
> think these differences are significant, I'm happy to update any
> necessary testcases and just unconditionally create the
> $state_dir/interactive file.

I'm inclined to agree that it should just write the file
unconditionally. As you point out it already does this for other things
that aren't "interactive" as far as the user is concerned. Someone could
always add an file to indicate the "real" mode later that would work for
all the implicit interactive rebase cases if it was important to them.

Best Wishes

Phillip

> 
>>> @@ -501,17 +502,11 @@ fi
>>>
>>>  if test -n "$git_am_opt"; then
>>>       incompatible_opts=`echo "$git_am_opt" | sed -e 's/ -q//'`
>>> -     if test -n "$interactive_rebase"
>>> +     if test -n "$incompatible_opts"
>>
>> Did you not mean to turn this into a test for actually_interactve ||
>> do_merge?
>>
>>>       then
>>> -             if test -n "$incompatible_opts"
>>> +             if test -n "$actually_interactive" || test "$do_merge"
>>
>> This could now be combined with the previous if (and the `-n` could be
>> added to the latter test):
>>
>>         if test -n "$actually_interactive" -o -n "$do_merge" &&
>>                 test -n "$incompatible_opts"
>>
>> The indentation would change, but this hunk is already confusing to read,
>> anyway, so...
> 
> I'm happy to switch the order of the nesting as you suggest and agree
> that it would make it easier to read.  However, I hesitate to combine
> the two if-lines.  When I read your combined suggested line, I parsed
> it as follows (using invalid pseduo-syntax just to convey grouping):
> 
>   ( -n "$actually_interactive ) || ( -n "$do_merge" && -n "$incompatible_opts" )
> 
> Granted, I parsed it wrong, putting the parentheses in the wrong
> places, and bash parses it as you intended.  While you may have
> precedence and left- vs. right- associativity rules down pat, I
> clearly didn't.  If we combine the lines, I'll probably mis-read them
> again when I see them in a year or more.
> 
>>> @@ -704,6 +699,22 @@ then
>>>       GIT_PAGER='' git diff --stat --summary "$mb" "$onto"
>>>  fi
>>>
>>> +if test -z "$actually_interactive"
>>> +then
>>> +     # If the $onto is a proper descendant of the tip of the branch, then
>>> +     # we just fast-forwarded.
>>> +     if test "$mb" = "$orig_head"
>>> +     then
>>
>> Likewise, this would be easier to read as
>>
>>         if test -z "$actually_interactive" && test "$mb" = "$orig_head"
> 
> Good point, I'll fix that up.
> 
>> Also: how certain are we that "$mb" does not start with a dash? We may
>> have to use the `test a"$mb" = a"$orig_head"` trick here... But I guess
>> this is moved code, so if it is buggy, it was buggy before.
> 
> From earlier in the file,
> mb=$(git merge-base ...)
> 
> So, unless we're expecting the output of git-merge-base to change in
> the future to include leading dashes, we shouldn't hit any issues.  I
> can make the change you suggest if you're worried, though.
> 
>>> diff --git a/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh b/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
>>> index 0392e36d23..04d6c71899 100755
>>> --- a/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t3406-rebase-message.sh
>>> @@ -17,14 +17,9 @@ test_expect_success 'setup' '
>>>       git tag start
>>>  '
>>>
>>> -cat >expect <<\EOF
>>> -Already applied: 0001 A
>>> -Already applied: 0002 B
>>> -Committed: 0003 Z
>>> -EOF
>>> -
>>>  test_expect_success 'rebase -m' '
>>>       git rebase -m master >report &&
>>> +     >expect &&
>>>       sed -n -e "/^Already applied: /p" \
>>>               -e "/^Committed: /p" report >actual &&
>>>       test_cmp expect actual
>>
>> This might be called a regression... I don't know any user of `git rebase
>> -m`, but I guess if I was one, I would like to keep seeing those messages.
>>
>> It *should* be relatively easy to tell the sequencer.c to issue these
>> messages, I think. But it would be more work.
> 
> You may well be right.  Here's where my thinking came from...
> 
> am-based, interactive-based, and merge-based rebases have lots of
> little ways in which they have differed, this being just one of them.
> It was sometimes hard making a judgement call when writing this series
> about whether any given deviation was a difference I wanted to smooth
> over or a difference I wanted to perpetuate between various flags.
> Further, if it was a difference I wanted to smooth over, then I had to
> decide which of the current behaviors was 'correct'.
> 
> In this particular case, I basically went off perceived usage.
> am-based rebases have lots of special flags relevant to it only
> (--whitespace, -C, etc.) and is the default, so it clearly has lots of
> users.  interactive-based rebases are pretty prominent too, and have
> very specific special capabilities the other modes don't.  In
> contrast, merge-based rebases can't do a single thing that interactive
> can't; and unless you're using a special merge strategy, for the last
> 10 years merge-based rebases haven't been able to do anything a normal
> am-based rebase couldn't.  merge-based rebases were added in mid-2006
> to handle renames, but am-based rebases gained that ability at the end
> of 2008.  Basically, rebase -m was dormant and useless...until
> directory rename detection became a thing this cycle.  (Also, in
> config options and documentation merge tends to be overlooked; just a
> single example is that pull.rebase can be set to interactive, but not
> to merge.)
> 
> Anyway, with this in mind, I didn't think those extra messages were
> all that important.  If others disagree I can look into adding them --
> that'd also make the --quiet mode more useful for interactive, since
> there'd be more messages for it to strip out.
> 
>>>  test_expect_success "rebase -p is no-op in non-linear history" "
>>> diff --git a/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh b/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
>>> index 9b2a274c71..145c61251d 100755
>>> --- a/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t5407-post-rewrite-hook.sh
>>> @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git rebase -m --skip' '
>>>       git rebase --continue &&
>>>       echo rebase >expected.args &&
>>>       cat >expected.data <<-EOF &&
>>> +     $(git rev-parse C) $(git rev-parse HEAD^)
>>>       $(git rev-parse D) $(git rev-parse HEAD)
>>>       EOF
>>>       verify_hook_input
>>
>> This is a bit sad, because it seems to suggest that we now do more
>> unnecessary work here, or is my reading incorrect?
> 
> I agree that it's a bit sad.  I spent a while looking at this testcase
> and puzzling over what it meant, and my commit message pointed out
> that I wasn't quite sure where it came from:
> 
>       t5407: different rebase types varied slightly in how many times checkout
>              or commit or equivalents were called based on a quick comparison
>              of this tests and previous ones which covered different rebase
>              flavors.  I think this is just attributable to this difference.
> 
> It would be nice to avoid the extra work, but I'm worried tackling
> that might cause me to step on toes of folks doing the rewrite of
> interactive rebases from shell to C.  Maybe I should just add a TODO
> note in the testcase, similar to the one in t3425 near a few lines I
> touched in this patch?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the detailed feedback and suggestions!
> 
> Elijah
>