Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix t3404 assumption that `wc -l` does not use whitespace.

Hi,

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jörg Sommer wrote:

Johannes Schindelin schrieb am Mon 28. Apr, 14:42 (+0100):

quoted

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jörg Sommer wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

...  It did not help that I hated the fact that that series changed 
the original design without even understanding it.

Care to elaborate on this point further?  I do not get it.

The original implementation of -p was modeled closely after 
filter-branch, in that it created a subdirectory (dotest/rewritten) 
containing the new commit names for those commits that were rewritten.

But that wasn't the way rebase -i works.

I know exactly how it works. D'oh.

quoted

You had to jump in before pick_one does anything which clearly shows you 
did something different from the default way.

That is bullshit.  I did not do anything "different from the default way".  
I carefully designed an interface that was easy to understand, because it 
mimicked how you would do the same _by hand_, but without the hassle to 
actually having to do everything by hand.

In other words, rebase -i is just a cherry-pick in a loop.

But not rebase -i -p.

Yes.  With the exception that you have to checkout and merge in the loop, 
too.

quoted

And _exactly_ the same should have been done for -p.

But you didn't do it.

Very well done.  If your intention is to piss me off: you succeeded.

_OF COURSE_ I did not do it.  That is why it was not working.

But you could have fixed that.

Instead, you chose to complicate things.

quoted

Namely, _not_ introduce some artificial marks, but use the _commit 
names_!

I don't buy, you don't use marks (notes on paper or git tags) when you 
rebase a branch with at least 8 commits and 2 merges.

And Junio discribed how he would do such a rebase and it included marks. 
And I follow how. So no, they aren't artificial.

So you again ignored completely the argument I made.

Brilliant.

The same issue is _totally_ the same _without_ -p!

And you cannot fix the problem by introducing another one.

You can try to complicate things even further, sure, but you will not 
change the fact that this is no solution at all.

Well, I refuse to let you insult my intelligence any more.

Ciao,
Dscho