From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Nakul V S via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>,
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>,
Nakul V S <vsnakul@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sequencer: refuse to pick or revert shallow boundary commits
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2026 19:30:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqwlqx1dx0.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pull.2273.v2.git.1793455522168.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Nakul V. S. via GitGitGadget's message of "Sat, 31 Oct 2026 14:05:22 +0000")
"Nakul V S via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> Changes since v1:
>
> * Also refuse cherry-pick and rebase (merge, interactive and --apply
> backends), as suggested by Phillip.
> * Check when the list of commits is built rather than in
> do_pick_commit(), so a refused command leaves no state behind. Uses a
> single shared helper.
> * --allow-shallow-boundary is now accepted by cherry-pick as well, and
> is saved across --continue.
> * Dropped the option from the revert synopsis.
> * rebase --autostash restores the user's changes if the rebase is
> refused.
All of these sounds sensible.
> * Rebased onto current master.
Was it necessary? On which commit was the previous round based?
Has there been any changes that made it necessary to rebase since
then?
> Not covered here: git commit --amend, and pick/revert lines typed into
> the rebase todo by hand.
It is OK to start small and extend coverage step by step, as we are
making strict improvements. Do we however have some vision on how
these would later be supported?
> + else if (!strcmp(key, "options.allow-shallow-boundary"))
> + opts->allow_shallow_boundary =
> + git_config_bool_or_int(key, value, ctx->kvi, &error_flag);
Hmph, why not git_config_bool()?
Unlike commit.verbose or status.submodulesummary, I didn't expect
this to have anything more than a simple "yes we allow it" or "no
don't allow it" answer. "all the other boolean neighbors somehow
use it" is an understandable answer, but I expect people to do
better than that.
Overall things seem to be in a good shape. Except for tiny details
like this one.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-01 2:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-21 10:09 [PATCH] sequencer: refuse to revert shallow boundary commits by default Nakul V S via GitGitGadget
2026-10-21 15:20 ` Phillip Wood
2026-10-21 19:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-26 10:58 ` Phillip Wood
2026-10-31 17:22 ` Nakul V S
2026-10-31 17:29 ` Nakul V S
2026-10-31 17:18 ` Nakul V S
2026-10-31 14:05 ` [PATCH v2] sequencer: refuse to pick or revert shallow boundary commits Nakul V S via GitGitGadget
2026-11-01 2:30 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-11-01 18:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-11-04 14:22 ` 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=xmqqwlqx1dx0.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=vsnakul@gmail.com \
/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.