Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] builtin/history: abort reword on same message

[Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>]

On 26/06/09 12:30PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I can see a situation where a user performs:
> >
> >   git history reword abcd1234
> >
> > with the intention to modify a commit message, but then for some reason
> > changes their mind and doesn't want history to change. Maybe the wrong
> > commit was referenced, or they decide the current message is actually
> > fine. From my understanding, there isn't a great way to abort rewording
> > a commit during editing and thus the user would have to reset history
> > afterwards if they care enough to go back to the previous point.
> >
> > So I do see some value in a mechanism to abort rewriting a commit
> > message.
> 
> I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.  I want to
> see that command "succeed" either case (normally we create a new
> commit object because we record an updated committer timestamp, but
> if there is no need to create a new commit object only to record an
> updated committer timestamp, we may choose not to and leave the
> history intact) and I do not want it to *abort*.
> 
> The mechanism to do so may be exactly the same, i.e., accept an
> updated log message, then try to "hash-object" (without -w) the
> commit object with everything, except for the updated commit log
> message, taken from the original commit, plus the updated log
> message.  And if the resulting hash is the same as the original, do
> not do anything further and return happily.  Aborting sounds more
> like complaining loudly "baa, you asked me to reword but you gave me
> the same message? is anything wrong with you?" with non-zero exit
> status, which I think the user does not deserve in such a case.

Yes, I completely agree. If the user doesn't update the commit message,
for whatever reason, that should still be considered a success since it
follows the user's intent. I don't think it makes sense to exit with a
non-zero code in such cases. I would also question if we should print
any message/note to the user at all for the same reasons.

-Justin