From: ydirson@free.fr
To: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Cc: git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] git-rebase-rewind, nested rebases, remembering stgit
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:33:48 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <529810619.466659941.1616405628030.JavaMail.root@zimbra39-e7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD3r+kJTxYCvaToyQXO59PNJiZOfOFwUz7FzTfs=hMuHWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Christian,
> De: "Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>
> À: "Yann Dirson" <ydirson@free.fr>
> Cc: "git" <git@vger.kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 22 Mars 2021 09:49:23
> Objet: Re: [RFC] git-rebase-rewind, nested rebases, remembering stgit
>
> Hi Yann,
>
> Nice to hear from you on the list!
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 5:45 PM <ydirson@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Hello there,
> >
> > I often find myself doing iterative refactorings, which can lead to
> > long branches, and while rebasing to edit HEAD~10 realize that I
> > first
> > need to edit HEAD~20 or to add more commits below that stack.
> >
> > If you've used stgit when it was a thing, you probably see how it
> > helped doing that. While git-rebase has grown to do much more than
> > stgit in most areas, this is still one area where with a pain point
> > for me.
> >
> > Here is a small git-rebase-rewind script I've been using for a few
> > weeks,
> > starting with my most common use-case: automate worklow "edit
> > git-rebase-todo
> > to prepend 'pick' commands for the N previous commits, then reset
> > --hard HEAD~N".
> >
> > As you will see from the new needs revealed by using this script
> > (see in the
> > script header), I believe it would be valuable to integrate such a
> > mechanism
> > directly into git-rebase. Notably, "git rebase -i" itself can be
> > seen as a
> > form of rewind, and this rewind feature would benefit from all the
> > interactive
> > rebase work.
> >
> > Does that sound like reasonable premises ?
>
> Sorry for the late answer. It sounds reasonable to me.
>
> It looks to me like a way to restart the whole interactive rebase
> process though, so I wonder if calling it "--restart" would be better
> than "--rewind".
Right, it is indeed like doing another interactive rebase while the
current one is not finished. Maybe just running "rebase -i" without
more option could be sufficient ? That could break the expectation
when someone relies on rebase refusing to proceed while already rebasing,
though it could be mitigated if a "rebase --abort" just aborts the
most recent rebase.
There are quite a few UI issues to be thought through around here :)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-22 9:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1641138664.431077840.1615652537045.JavaMail.root@zimbra39-e7>
2021-03-13 16:37 ` [RFC] git-rebase-rewind, nested rebases, remembering stgit ydirson
2021-03-22 8:49 ` Christian Couder
2021-03-22 9:33 ` ydirson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=529810619.466659941.1616405628030.JavaMail.root@zimbra39-e7 \
--to=ydirson@free.fr \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.