From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Catch and handle git-commit failures in git-rebase --interactive Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:03:59 -0800 Message-ID: <7vr6hjw4gw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071219064500.GB8915@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 19 08:04:46 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 1J4syy-0007jP-BQ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:04:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752455AbXLSHEV (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:04:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751676AbXLSHEV (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:04:21 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:58197 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169AbXLSHEU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:04:20 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E056915; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90846911; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:04:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071219064500.GB8915@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:45:00 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Comments welcome. This is on top of my 1/2 patch but we could > drop my 1/2 and rewrite this to not use --no-verify, but handle > the git-commit error correctly. > > However that would force users to fix whitespace errors in later > patches in a series if they use -i, even though non-i wouldn't > require that sort of fix-up. So I think we should do both patches > in the series. I agree with both patches. When one wants to use rebase to fix-up whitespace breakage in patches in bulk, you can set apply.whitespace to "fix". One bad side effect of this is that if you usually have apply.whitespace set to "fix" (because you need to accept a lot of patches but your contributers tend to give crappy patches), you need to temporarily change the configuration while rebasing if you do not want to preserve intentional whitespace breakages (e.g. ones in test scripts). This can be argued either a feature or a misfeature. But rebase -i breaking and squashing upon commit failure (including pre-commit safety) cannot be called either feature nor misfeature --- it is an outright bug.