Re: [PATCH 14/22] sequencer: prepare for rebase -i's commit functionality

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

+/* We will introduce the 'interactive rebase' mode later */
+#define IS_REBASE_I() 0

I do not see a point in naming this all caps.

Old habit. Macros are all-caps.

The use site would be a lot more pleasant to read when the reader does
not have to care if this is implemented as a preprocessor macro or a
helper function.

I converted this to a helper function.

quoted

@@ -377,20 +387,72 @@ static int is_index_unchanged(void)
 	return !hashcmp(active_cache_tree->sha1, head_commit->tree->object.oid.hash);
 }
 
+static char **read_author_script(void)
+{
+	struct strbuf script = STRBUF_INIT;
+	int i, count = 0;
+	char *p, *p2, **env;
+	size_t env_size;
+
+	if (strbuf_read_file(&script, rebase_path_author_script(), 256) <= 0)
+		return NULL;
+
+	for (p = script.buf; *p; p++)
+		if (skip_prefix(p, "'\\\\''", (const char **)&p2))
+			strbuf_splice(&script, p - script.buf, p2 - p, "'", 1);
+		else if (*p == '\'')
+			strbuf_splice(&script, p-- - script.buf, 1, "", 0);
+		else if (*p == '\n') {
+			*p = '\0';
+			count++;
+		}

Hmph.  What is this loop doing?  Is it decoding a sq-quoted buffer
or something?  Don't we have a helper function to do that?

Well, it is not just decoding an sq-quoted buffer, but several lines with
definitions we sq-quoted ourselves, individually.

The quote.[ch] code currently has no code to dequote lines individually.

At this point, I would prefer to keep this code as-is, as I tested it over
the course of months and do not want to introduce regressions *now*.

quoted

+	env_size = (count + 1) * sizeof(*env);
+	strbuf_grow(&script, env_size);
+	memmove(script.buf + env_size, script.buf, script.len);
+	p = script.buf + env_size;
+	env = (char **)strbuf_detach(&script, NULL);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+		env[i] = p;
+		p += strlen(p) + 1;
+	}
+	env[count] = NULL;
+
+	return env;
+}
+
 /*
  * If we are cherry-pick, and if the merge did not result in
  * hand-editing, we will hit this commit and inherit the original
  * author date and name.
  * If we are revert, or if our cherry-pick results in a hand merge,
- * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that.
+ * we had better say that the current user is responsible for that
+ * (except, of course, while running an interactive rebase).
  */

The added "(except, ...)" reads as if "even if we are reverting, if
that is done as part of an interactive rebase, the authorship rule
for a revert does not apply".

If that is not what you meant, i.e. if you did not mean to imply
that "rebase -i" doing a revert is a normal thing, this needs to be
rephrased to avoid the misinterpretation.

I rephrased it.

Ciao,
Dscho