From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: git rebase --skip Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:19:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20071109161945.GA26826@fieldses.org> References: <20071107222105.GA31666@glandium.org> <20071108032308.GA5638@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071108102412.GA31187@atjola.homenet> <4732E5A8.3020101@op5.se> <20071108104403.GB31187@atjola.homenet> <20071108231632.GC29840@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vir4cz45z.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071109032227.GA31760@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= Steinbrink , Andreas Ericsson , Mike Hommey , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 09 17:21:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IqWbO-0003hJ-Aw for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:21:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751278AbXKIQUG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:20:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753640AbXKIQUF (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:20:05 -0500 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:51790 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754656AbXKIQUD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:20:03 -0500 Received: from bfields by fieldses.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IqWaA-0007YI-4I; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:19:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:59:57AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote: > > > So I am fine with the original patch (unconditional reset --hard), but > > it would be nice to see the people who care submit concrete proposals > > for such a safety valve. > > Isn't having to say "--skip" instead of "--continue" enough? Some people > might complain that it's too easy to get your fingers wired to type > --skip. > > In that case, I might beg to differ for two reasons: --skip is definitely > not the default operation, so the fingers do not get any chance to do > that, and even if, they would get wired to --force --skip just as easily. > > Besides, after my patch to rebase on a detached HEAD, it is very easy to > go back to the original state and try again. We can't make --skip do an automatic reset --hard. I expect --skip to tell me if I haven't finished resolving conflicts. If it doesn't do that, I'll lose work. I can't be the only user with that expectation. (To be more specific: the work I lose is the work spent resolving how however many conflicts I've dealt with so far. It isn't always the case that I get to a certain point in a rebase and say "ah, yes, I know this is already applied, I can reset and skip it." More often I want to go through each conflict and decide individually. So I do that for a few, I run --continue or --skip when I think I'm done (but don't actually check first, 'cause I count on rebase to do that), then fix up anything remaining.) --b.