From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F33291CFBC for ; Fri, 17 May 2024 08:54:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715936060; cv=none; b=dUmcRA6kGgyyABCR2jD7xlAaPW4U7rGu6UOAKmycvxBMgRcjdaeAXfPbHOWPNYUEHFXnrmip1XUGK/cGxDVtgZujF/Etkzv/LKv18S1EvcJooqABJscK0F5k22dj3eIdVeXJtlQOZ2DHw7SH6XC5OodRZQ/HMGtTYSq8VXEU/T4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715936060; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6igFFhplDqzZ2mqtocdAEArBvjwwqN/jhxekQybqcOE=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=GAgyKa+rYKDWTprOqn9ZPWOgnckk8z/fcAZItUeJOT7/SbTpntKbPZNl0usxiFwPR94RU577rkpoEjl4TBZwWq7OM2tPQC+weNEWfs7P/xjRNh8fz4b3fAkGgN55qD/ww/OLX2mz1kIyfgYaDyo0oyEMaGvilRxmnXcdN73ufVs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=RaEGJ/3y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="RaEGJ/3y" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1715936048; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Z13lz5RK8dCnbL++5SsYpt83S8n8tWe+UW8HOKlPMqI=; b=RaEGJ/3yU5XbQzmi/Q0Nmu6ctFq3Hzdq71ZVo4qNZmnftJesJMlK+KDw3ABJy6spQ3Uf56 s/P65I6s2B/si4NB/yxOn2ZDq38FqDx69e/VXumQh/LO+iPjKcNR4H9wR2qhKWkOUo2k5F tie7LiOKdHqSaU19bcQsc6tl1PD3p/0hpYRSzbh/koCtgGYwA/ewoMrie+zKcQMVkPXyuP mHZrmSdecr6mhGapIH6LKaNthJtxhVav6/fTlXOrho9uwr0J7I4GHHcr/8cXsqKfEM7K89 AuW5vnfKmfELTMNkbd6SrQSNsYkPyuLTDDlLo0Jf1OpkxUzJ7KXEHszELl+mIA== Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 10:54:06 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Junio C Hamano , Sean Allred , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Q] rebase -i: turn "pick" to "edit", make no change, what should happen? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <233aefd10fbe965c190541d353822fe5@manjaro.org> X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-05-17 09:32, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:09:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Sean Allred writes: >> >> > Setting aside the obvious reality that an actual change here could have >> > pretty serious UX considerations for folks with muscle-memory, what in >> > your opinion would be the right thing to do? Why? Are rebase commands >> > 'shortcuts' or are they intended to be orthogonal? Do they have designed >> > purposes? >> > >> > I'm wondering if you can tease out what the 'ideal' state looks like to >> > you, then you can identify what if anything there is to be done about >> > it. >> >> Oh, it would be very simple. >> >> If I say "edit", whether I made a tree change or not, I want to get >> an editor when I said "rebase --continue". If I say "reword", I >> want to get an editor _without_ having a chance to muck with the >> tree status. That would be the "ideal" behaviour, iow, the "mental >> model" is just "edit" gives the users a chance to edit both trees >> (by first giving control back to a shell prompt) and the log message >> (by opening the editor upon "--continue"), while "reword" is only >> about the message so does not give shell prompt back to the user >> (unless absolutely necessary, that is. If the "reword" were to >> conflict due to tree changes in earlier steps, it would need to give >> control back to a shell prompt to ask the user's help to resolve the >> conflict. It is just that when there is no need to edit the tree >> otherwise, that is skipped). > > I quite frequently use "edit" just to inspect commits, stop at random > points in the history, run tests and whatnot. So this would be a UX > regression for me because I do not want to change commit messages and > don't want to be bothered. > > With the introduction of the "break" command you can certainly argue > that "edit" is the wrong command to use in my case. Muscle memory is > hard to retrain though :) > > One could potentially make the behaviour configurable so that you get > to > choose how "edit" behaves. I agree that it would be best to introduce a new configuration option for this purpose. Making such a change in the behavior of interactive rebase permanently would probably result in more than a few raised eyebrows, while a new configuration option would be a safe choice.