Re: [PATCH 2/2] rebase -i: use some kind of config file to save author information

[Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> > This patch would use the message from HEAD instead of
> > "$DOTEST"/message, but it looks like we are changing "$DOTEST"/message
> > sometimes with the "make_squash_message" function.
>
> Heh, that is why it was "something along this line" patch ;-)
>
> Regarding the C rewrite vs rebase--i.sh update, I tend to agree with
> Dscho that changing the scripted Porcelain is not worth it if we are
> rewriting the whole thing in C soon.  But perhaps we can allow
> combinations of the two options ("-[cC] commit" and "-F file") given to
> "git commit"?

I agree that it would be nice.

> The intent of the caller in such a case is quite 
> clear---use the authorship but do use the message from the other source
> (if we do this, it would probably make sense to do that also for "-m
> message").  The version entirely written in C obviously does not even
> need such an option (it can read authorship from HEAD and use its own
> message), but the point is if going that route would eliminate the need
> to store "which commit were we dealing with when we gave the control
> back" information on disk.  I suspect that the sequencing information is
> already on disk (i.e. $TODO file) and author-script may be redundant
> information.

Yeah, perhaps we could ge this route, but I'd rather just port what I can 
step by step first and then polish and/or rewrite some parts than the other 
way around.

Thanks,
Christian.