Re: interactive rebase should better highlight the not-applying commit

[Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin@pobox.com>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:24:37PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> No, a false belief in your own shortcomings, as you thought it would be
> easier to address your wishes for somebody else than you.

Ah, shucks, I guess I could jump in.

> But maybe I read it all wrong and you do want to make this happen
> yourself, and you simply want a little advice how to go about it?

Ugh, if you insist. You really know how to hold someone's feet to the 
fire, eh?

> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:25:19PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > However IIUC currently rebase is completely rewritten/ported to C 
> > > where it is easier to add color support as we do have some color 
> > > support in there already.
> > 
> > Sounds great. Is there a beta release that I can try out?
> 
> There is no release as such, unless you count Git for Windows v2.10.0.

Nope, that doesn't count. ;-)

> But you can try the `interactive-rebase` branch of
> https://github.com/dscho/git; please note, though, that my main aim was to
> be as faithful as possible in the conversion (modulo speed, of course).

Hm OK

> > Sometimes I do a rebase to fix some tiny thing 10-15 commits from HEAD.
> > Maybe only 1 file is affected and there are no merge conflicts, but when
> > rebase reapplies all the commits, the timestamps of lots of unmodified
> > files change even though they are unmodified compared to before the
> > rebase.
> 
> Well, they *were* modified, right?

Were they? Isn't that just an artefact of the implementation?

> A workaround would be to create a new worktree using the awesome `git
> worktree` command, perform the rebase there (on an unnamed branch -- AKA
> "detached HEAD", no relation to Helloween), and then come back to the
> original worktree and reset --hard to the new revision. That reset would
> detect that there are actually no changes required to said files.

What would be the problem with doing this by default? Or could it be a 
configuration option that can be enabled?

-- 
Joshua N. Pritikin, Ph.D.
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics
Virginia Commonwealth University
PO Box 980126
800 E Leigh St, Biotech One, Suite 1-133
Richmond, VA 23219
http://people.virginia.edu/~jnp3bc