From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Hugo Sales <hugo@hsal.es>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] rebase: add --[no-]edit to --continue
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:04:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqldb4xlqa.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260721140443.1809379-1-hugo@hsal.es> (Hugo Sales's message of "Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:04:41 +0100")
Hugo Sales <hugo@hsal.es> writes:
> When a rebase stops for conflicts and the user runs `git rebase --continue`, the
> merge backend opens $EDITOR so the commit message can be revised. That is often
> useful, but not always: sometimes the user only wants to keep the message that
> is already there.
>
> This series adds:
>
> - `git rebase --continue --no-edit` to commit without opening an editor
Meh. "GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR=: git rebase --continue" is your friend ;-)
> - `rebase.noEdit` to make that the default on continue
> - `git rebase --continue --edit` to override `rebase.noEdit`
The new 'rebase.noEdit' configuration is especially concerning. It
encourages users to assume by default that their rebase sessions
will not produce notable changes worth recording in the commit logs.
A few immediate edge cases come to mind:
- What if 'rebase -i' stops to give control back to the user for
reasons other than a merge conflict? If the user chose 'edit',
their original intent was to modify both the commit message and
the content. With 'rebase.noEdit' enabled, would they now have
to remember to pass '--edit' when continuing? Does the answer
depend on whether the 'edit' step resulted in a merge conflict?
- What if the user chose 'reword', which is an explicit signal to
update the commit message, but 'rebase.noEdit' is enabled? If
the rebase does not stop with a conflict, it might open the
editor regardless of the configuration. But if a conflict does
occur and requires manual resolution, will the user still need to
remember to pass '--edit' when continuing?
The proposed tests only cover the code path where control returns to
the user due to a conflict. This is understandable since that
scenario was your primary motivation. However, they do not verify
what happens when there are no conflicts but the user explicitly
intended to edit the message from the start. You may want to expand
the test coverage to address these scenarios (and potentially
others, as this is not an exhaustive list).
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-21 14:04 [PATCH 0/1] rebase: add --[no-]edit to --continue Hugo Sales
2026-07-21 14:04 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Hugo Sales
2026-07-21 18:04 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-07-22 13:39 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Phillip Wood
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=xmqqldb4xlqa.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hugo@hsal.es \
/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.