Re: [PATCH 5/6] status: do not depend on flaky reflog messages

[Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Two possibilities:
>
>  (1) Assume that the other thread will produce a more reasonable
>      semantics when finished; perhaps the first line will go away
>      entirely, or maybe it would say something like "# Rebasing;
>      head at $commit".
>
>      Your topic does not _care_ what it would say, so you tweak the
>      "status" test that is done during "rebase" so that they
>      ignore the first lines; or

You said you didn't want to regress to show senseless information, and
I agreed with that.  What is wrong with the patch I showed in the
previous email?  Smudging is a bad hack, and must only be used as a
last resort: when an another topics updates status to say something
sensible, it will have to unsmudge the tests.

diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index bf84a86..99c55e3 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c
@@ -1182,7 +1182,7 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
                                if (!get_sha1("HEAD", sha1) &&
                                    !hashcmp(sha1, state.detached_sha1))
                                        on_what = _("HEAD detached at ");
-                               else
+                               else if (!state.rebase_in_progress)
                                        on_what = _("HEAD detached from ");
                        } else {
                                branch_name = "";

>  (2) Starting from the same assumption as above, but try to minimize
>      the semantics change to user-visible behaviour this series
>      makes.

The "try to minimize" is a somewhat admirable goal, but I have shown
that your midway solution is wrong.  Either dedicate a lot of time and
effort towards improving status for rebase, or don't attempt it.

>      That means that even though the _primary_ thing you want to do
>      is to tweak "rebase" and its internal use of "checkout" in such
>      a way that reflog will not record the implementation-detail
>      checkout (because that will affect the next "checkout -"), make
>      sure that "status" while doing "rebase" reports where the
>      internal "checkout" of $ONTO detached HEAD from/at.

Unless we change the first line drastically to say: "rebase in
progress: rebasing onto $ONTO" (or something), I don't think this
makes sense.  And if we were to do that, why not do it properly like
"rebase ($N/$M): onto $ONTO, upstream $UPSTREAM, branch $BRANCH"?
Other people on a different thread are already handling that, and I am
not interested.

So, you have three simple choices now:

1. Accept the simple patch I proposed above.
2. Propose an alternative patch quickly.  *Patch*.  No more English.
3. Reject all patches, and leave me no choice but to smudge.

Which one is it going to be?