[PATCH] git-rebase--interactive.sh: Add new command "shell"

Add a new command "shell", which takes an option commit. It simply exits
to the shell with the commit (if given) and a message telling the user how
to resume the rebase. This is effectively the same thing as "x false" but
much friendlier to the user.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Ballard <redacted>
---
I discovered the need for this when I wanted to edit a commit, but apply
a fixup first. The only way with the existing tools was an exec command
that fails (e.g. "x false").

 git-rebase--interactive.sh |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
index 9121bb6..3501757 100755
--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh
+++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh

@@ -566,6 +566,26 @@ do_next () {
 			exit 1
 		fi
 		;;
+	!|"shell")
+		read -r command comment < "$TODO"
+		mark_action_done
+		# can't use $sha1 here for same reason as "exec"
+		line=$(git rev-list --pretty=oneline -1 --abbrev-commit --abbrev=7 HEAD)
+		sha1="${line%% *}"
+		rest="${line#* }"
+		echo "$sha1" > "$DOTEST"/stopped-sha
+		warn "Stopped at $sha1... $rest"
+		if test -n "$comment"; then
+			warn
+			warn "	$comment"
+		fi
+		warn
+		warn "Once you are ready to continue, run"
+		warn
+		warn "	git rebase --continue"
+		warn
+		exit 0
+		;;
 	*)
 		warn "Unknown command: $command $sha1 $rest"
 		if git rev-parse --verify -q "$sha1" >/dev/null

@@ -1007,6 +1027,7 @@ first and then run 'git rebase --continue' again."
 #  s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit
 #  f, fixup = like "squash", but discard this commit's log message
 #  x <cmd>, exec <cmd> = Run a shell command <cmd>, and stop if it fails
+#  !, shell = Exit to the shell
 #
 # If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.
 # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.

-- 
1.7.3.2.202.g3b863.dirty

On Nov 3, 2010, at 10:17 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

Add a new command "shell", which takes an option commit. It simply exits
to the shell with the commit (if given) and a message telling the user how
to resume the rebase. This is effectively the same thing as "x false" but
much friendlier to the user.

That was supposed to say "optional comment", not "option commit". And again
below, "comment" not "commit".

-Kevin Ballard

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Kevin Ballard [off-list ref] wrote:

Add a new command "shell", which takes an option commit. It simply exits
to the shell with the commit (if given) and a message telling the user how
to resume the rebase. This is effectively the same thing as "x false" but
much friendlier to the user.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how is this different from "edit"?

On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Kevin Ballard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add a new command "shell", which takes an option commit. It simply exits
to the shell with the commit (if given) and a message telling the user how
to resume the rebase. This is effectively the same thing as "x false" but
much friendlier to the user.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how is this different from "edit"?

Edit cherry-picks a commit, then exits to the shell. I needed to exit to the
shell without cherry-picking a commit. As stated in the comments above the
diffstat on the patch, the original use case here was something along the
lines of

  edit 12345 some commit
  fixup 23456 another commit
  shell I want to amend the commit after the fixup

-Kevin Ballard

quoted

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how is this different from
"edit"?

Edit cherry-picks a commit, then exits to the shell. I needed to exit
to the shell without cherry-picking a commit.

Indeed, before "x false" was available, I had found out that "edit"
without an argument fails with a harmless error and indeed achieves that
"pause" mechanism which was really missing.

What about just fixing this so we can use "edit" ?  Do we really need
another command here ?

-- 
Yann Dirson - Bertin Technologies

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Yann Dirson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how is this different from
"edit"?

Edit cherry-picks a commit, then exits to the shell. I needed to exit
to the shell without cherry-picking a commit.

Then you do "edit" on the preceding commit instead, no?

Indeed, before "x false" was available, I had found out that "edit"
without an argument fails with a harmless error and indeed achieves that
"pause" mechanism which was really missing.

What about just fixing this so we can use "edit" ?  Do we really need
another command here ?

Having an parameter-less "edit" would indeed be a bit more convenient.

On 11:59 AM, Yann Dirson wrote:

quoted

quoted

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but how is this different from
"edit"?

Edit cherry-picks a commit, then exits to the shell. I needed to exit
to the shell without cherry-picking a commit.

Indeed, before "x false" was available, I had found out that "edit"
without an argument fails with a harmless error and indeed achieves that
"pause" mechanism which was really missing.

What about just fixing this so we can use "edit" ?  Do we really need
another command here ?

FWIW: +1 for edit.