Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
This marks the count down to '3': two more patch series after this
(really tiny ones) and we have a faster rebase -i.
Nice.
Apart from mostly cosmetic patches (and the occasional odd bug that I
fixed promptly), I used these patches since mid May to perform all of my
interactive rebases. In mid June, I had the idea to teach rebase -i to
run *both* scripted rebase and rebase--helper and to cross-validate the
results. This slowed down all my interactive rebases since, but helped
me catch three rather obscure bugs (e.g. that git commit --fixup unfolds
long onelines and rebase -i still finds the correct original commit).
...
Please note that the interdiff vs v1 is only of limited use: too many
things changed in the meantime, in particular the prepare-sequencer
branch that went through a couple of iterations before it found its way
into git.git's master branch. So please take the interdiff with a
mountain range of salt.
...
Changes since v1:
...
- removed the beautiful ordinal logic (to print out "1st", "2nd", "3rd"
etc) and made things consistent with the current `rebase -i`.
It was removed because it was too Anglo-centric and unusable in i18n
context, no?
Judging from the list above, interdiff are pretty much all cosmetic
and that is why you say it is only of limited use, I guess.
... goes and reads the remainder and finds that these were
... all minor changes, mostly cosmetic, with a helper function
... refactored out or two and things of that nature.
It is actually a good thing. We do not want to see it deviate too
drastically from what you have been testing for some months.
Thanks.
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Apart from mostly cosmetic patches (and the occasional odd bug that I
fixed promptly), I used these patches since mid May to perform all of my
interactive rebases. In mid June, I had the idea to teach rebase -i to
run *both* scripted rebase and rebase--helper and to cross-validate the
results. This slowed down all my interactive rebases since, but helped
me catch three rather obscure bugs (e.g. that git commit --fixup unfolds
long onelines and rebase -i still finds the correct original commit).
...
Please note that the interdiff vs v1 is only of limited use: too many
things changed in the meantime, in particular the prepare-sequencer
branch that went through a couple of iterations before it found its way
into git.git's master branch. So please take the interdiff with a
mountain range of salt.
...
Changes since v1:
...
- removed the beautiful ordinal logic (to print out "1st", "2nd", "3rd"
etc) and made things consistent with the current `rebase -i`.
It was removed because it was too Anglo-centric and unusable in i18n
context, no?
Yes, but I remember putting in a lot of time to try to come up with the
most elegant way to convert a number into an English ordinal in a shell
function. That's where all that wistfulness came from.
Judging from the list above, interdiff are pretty much all cosmetic
and that is why you say it is only of limited use, I guess.
No, I said that it is only of limited use because I had to fudge things to
come up with an interdiff. I had to fudge things because there is no
interdiff: it would require the previous iteration of the patch series to
apply cleanly to the current `master`, which it does not. So I rebased the
patches and left as much intact as possible, which means that the rebased
changes do not even compile because they were based on a previous
iteration of the prepare-sequencer patch series that did not make it into
`master` without substantial changes.
... goes and reads the remainder and finds that these were
... all minor changes, mostly cosmetic, with a helper function
... refactored out or two and things of that nature.
It is actually a good thing. We do not want to see it deviate too
drastically from what you have been testing for some months.
Well, that ship has sailed. Neither of the patch series
"require-clean-work-tree", "libify-sequencer" and "prepare-sequencer" made
it into `master` without substantial deviations from the code I had been
testing and improving for half a year. I did not expect the code to be
accepted unchanged, anyways.
Ciao,
Dscho