From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315A5C433EF for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 21:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343944AbiFCVXs (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:23:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37694 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230399AbiFCVXr (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:23:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B542FE6E for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 14:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB42187C88; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:23:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hssyMOaGe6cNMBqkbofR0SJH/xYYoFHukquIoS Wxx2A=; b=HpelvnFIhyBreBNz3hWPIVeB0jPr5dxeiuw0ViHm7MFfNng3Pz0JQD KJ/JzcdG6Xc8c2bzFiNDKqR7hP9vdW3mj2TBw4qkV1s25HJLcEgnPLA8klhRXCib JIXZl+3lqmSJHkCv/AZEnByIVpjXhgvLp1C98ZoHwIuAHd+7gTKyk= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8548187C86; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:23:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.92.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8244A187C85; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 17:23:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Taylor Blau , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] rebase: update branches in multi-part topic References: <9d2752dd-6029-e71a-4149-0641fea879fe@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 14:23:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: <9d2752dd-6029-e71a-4149-0641fea879fe@jeffhostetler.com> (Jeff Hostetler's message of "Fri, 3 Jun 2022 15:59:00 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 71774842-E383-11EC-9494-C85A9F429DF0-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff Hostetler writes: > I agree. I could have really used this while juggling all of the > parts of FSMonitor recently. And yes, it should write the updates > at the bottom in case of an abort. > > Should this take a branch pattern/regex to limit the set of branches > that are updated (or offered to be updated)? For example, if I have > an intermediate commit in the series that has 2 branch names pointing > at it, do we want to offer to update both of them or only the one > that matches some pattern related to the tip? Or is it sufficient to > just enumerate them at the bottom of the todo list and let the user > delete the lines they don't want? The latter sounds sufficient (starting from something simpler should work well in this case). > Should we actually do the update-ref's or should we write a script > that lets the user do it later? The latter would let us also write > out the commands to force update the remote refs if that would be > helpful. Aren't we writing "a script" already by implementing it as an additional "exec git update-ref" in the todo list already? I found that, combined with the idea to use the "label" Taylor mentioned, was the most brilliant part of this proposal.