Re: [PATCH 4/7] sequencer: introduce functions to handle autostashes via refs

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

On 22/01/2024 10:51, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:09:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>> The conversion (rather, the introduction to allow refs API to be
>> used to access them) look correct, but offhand I do not know what
>> the implication of leaving the file based interface would be.
> 
> We have said in past discussions that the sequencer state should remain
> self contained, and that requires us to keep the files-based interface.
> Refactoring it would likely be a larger undertaking, as we have also
> said that refs must either have pseudo-ref syntax or start with "refs/".
> 
> The sequencer with its "rebase-merge/autostash" files doesn't conform to
> either of those requirements, so we would also have to rename those
> reflike files. I doubt that this is really worth it, so I would keep
> those around as internal implementation details of how the sequencer
> works. These refs are not supposed to be accessed by the user in the
> first place, and we do not document their existence to the best of my
> knowledge. Also, `git rev-parse rebase-merge/autostash` would fail.

Exactly "rebase-merge/autostash" is a detail of the rebase 
implementation, it is not a ref that users should be using.

> So overall I think it's fine to leave this internal sequencer state as
> self-contained as it is.

That's my feeling too

Best Wishes

Phillip