Re: [PATCH] rebase: mention --abort alongside --continue

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

On 18/07/2026 09:05, Harald Nordgren wrote:
>> I wonder if the workflow that benefits from this "if exec fails,
>> give up and forget the whole thing" behavior is actually quite
>> different from what we consider the "normal" use of the command?
>> Perhaps the user is not interested in "rebasing" the history at
>> all, but is instead running a check on each and every commit.
>> That is, a more expensive version of:
>>
>>          for commit in $(git rev-list bottom..top)
>>          do
>>                  git reset --hard "$commit" &&
>>                  do the exec command || break
>>          done
>>
>> that just happens to be shorter to type?
>> Sure, that's exactly right.
I think I must be missing something; I had assumed that someone running 
a check on each commit wanted to ensure it passed, and, if not, they 
would want to fix the problem that caused the check to fail. In that 
case I would expect that they would want to amend the failing commit, 
rather than abort the rebase. What's the scenario where one wants to 
check a bunch of commits but not fix the ones that fail?

Thanks

Phillip