From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4131F6BF for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 21:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754588AbcIAVFq (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:05:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60296 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753985AbcIAVFn (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:05:43 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5484537BD9; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:47:40 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0gpYw7Oxchgo88/W6yXmpiSYw9A=; b=wUuYbc X77X8bkDR1lOyUMoaCzEvAEYxfK0AFVoB/J5YKzNckSxbgBNSxiyOK9HZtbYJ2mm OW7pI+Z+ani7BBTPhDsu2F/KterdBnz0u0OKOpUPiASfq/ZkxMwieBP9qv0jjI5R AmK63Xwl9m7fl7oepYGsve6gEQhhqz3/bKVP0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=G1x/goU4Qm/s7B27ZpqbwTY2Gv2J63SN w/1GIABpH9GSKk7R5MfWOLfdzSmU2tJ+qYO7yADi8tIe1H5/S4JqriMe+dPfKKPi vVpY0HSDxk/3CGeNvuoAKJzUZUmh5xPusJGPfDViNwlnlheJmVd6s9eAgLzIpnOL pZXW0NNSCSU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CABF37BD8; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7D3137BD7; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/22] sequencer: remember the onelines when parsing the todo file References: <12bffd6ca4eb7acc00a102d13348bb96ad08371d.1472457609.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <52d61bef-668b-fdc4-30b3-a34c11b39f81@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:47:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:37:43 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8EF4E8F8-7074-11E6-8C89-51057B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> though). The "one sequencer to rule them all" may even have to say >> "now give name ':1' to the result of the previous operation" in one >> step and in another later step have an instruction "merge ':1'". >> When that happens, you cannot even pre-populate the commit object >> when the sequencer reads the file, as the commit has not yet been >> created at that point. > > These considerations are pretty hypothetical. I would even place a bet > that we will *never* have ":1" as names, not if I have anything to say... > ;-) If you can always work with pre-existing commit, then you can validate all object references that appear in the instructions upfront. I was sort of expecting that, when you do the preserve-merges mode of "rebase -i", you would need to jump around, doing "we have reconstructed the side branch on a new 'onto', let's give the result this temporary name ':1', and then switch to the trunk (which would call for 'reset ' instruction) and merge that thing (which would be 'merge :1' or perhaps called 'pick :1')", and at that point you no longer validate the object references upfront. If you do not have to have such a "mark this point" and a "refer to that point we previously marked", then I agree that you should be able to pre-validate and keep the result in the structure.