Re: [PATCH] rebase: add `--update-refs=interactive`

[Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx@intelfx.name>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2776 bytes --]

On 2025-02-13 at 09:43 +0000, phillip.wood123@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Ivan
> 
> On 12/02/2025 17:18, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > On 2025-02-12 at 14:26 +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the explanation. So this is about copying a branch and then
> > > rebasing the copy without updating the original. A while ago there was a
> > > discussion[1] about excluding branches that match HEAD from
> > > "--update-refs". Maybe we should revisit that with a view to adding a
> > > config setting that excludes copies of the current branch from
> > > "--update-refs".
> > 
> > This idea stops working once you have a bunch of interdependent feature
> > branches (consider two branches work/myfeatureA and work/myfeatureB,
> > with the latter based on the former, with each having two versions as
> > described above, and then you rebase work/myfeatureB-v2 from v1 onto v2
> > and expect to update work/myfeatureA-v2 but not work/myfeatureA-v1).
> > Excluding branches that match HEAD is a very narrow workaround that
> > only fixes one particular instance of one particular workflow.
> 
> Good point
> 
> > I don't understand the opposition, really — in my understanding, an
> > ability to restrict update-refs to interactive runs is a significantly
> > useful mechanism that does not impose any particular policy. It answers
> > the question of "I want git to _suggest_ updating refs by default, but
> > only if I have a chance to confirm/reject each particular update".
> 
> I'm not opposed, I'm just trying to understand the problem and see if 
> there are synergies with other issues people have brought to the list in 
> the past. You've convinced me that supporting 
> "rebase.updateRefs=interactive" is worthwhile but I do not think we want 
> to change the commandline interface. I'd much rather reserve the 
> optional argument to support filtering in the future so that
> 
>     git rebase --update-refs='*-v2' --update-refs=^not-me-v2
> 
> would update all the branches ending in "-v2" except "not-me-v2". We'd 
> want configure any default patterns separately to whether 
> "--update-refs" was enabled by default which means we can add "rebase 
> .updateRefs=interactive" without boxing ourselves into a corner.

Makes sense, that's indeed a better use of the optional argument.
Alright, I'll send a v2 with +stylistic changes and -CLI changes.

-- 
Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /

> 
> > > Maintaining multiple versions of the same branch sounds like a lot of
> > > work - whats the advantage over merging a single branch into each release?
> > 
> > Different people, different workflows.
> 
> Fair enough, from what Junio said it may actually be less work anyway.
> 
> Best Wishes
> 
> Phillip
> 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 862 bytes --]