Re: [PATCH RFC] rebase: respect --ff-only option

On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Alex Henrie wrote:

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:36 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 04 2021, Alex Henrie wrote:

quoted

+int error_ff_impossible(void)
+{
+     error(_("Not possible to fast-forward, aborting."));
+     return -1;
+}

Here's one, the idiom is just "return error", i.e it itself returns -1.

That would indeed be simpler; thanks for pointing that out.

quoted

FWIW I'd consider doing:

        /* earlier, static scope */
        static const char error_ff_impossible = N_("Not possible...");
        /* later, function scope */
            return error(error_ff_impossible);

It's a small difference, but for translators who use the jump-to-source
while translating not having the indirection helps, and in this case
it's just used 3 times...

Wouldn't jump-to-source take the user to the English text in advice.c
either way? How does putting it in a static variable help?

Yes, sorry. I don't know what I was thinking there. What I said would
only apply if _() was used inline, nevermind.

quoted

quoted

[...]
      if (parent && parse_commit(parent) < 0)
              /* TRANSLATORS: The first %s will be a "todo" command like

@@ -2764,7 +2769,7 @@ static int populate_opts_cb(const char *key, const char *value, void *data)
      else if (!strcmp(key, "options.record-origin"))
              opts->record_origin = git_config_bool_or_int(key, value, &error_flag);
      else if (!strcmp(key, "options.allow-ff"))
-             opts->allow_ff = git_config_bool_or_int(key, value, &error_flag);
+             opts->fast_forward = git_config_bool_or_int(key, value, &error_flag) ? FF_ALLOW : FF_NO;

Since we're on nits, we try to wrap at 80 characters.

Thanks, I didn't know what the exact cutoff was.

It's not strictly adhered to, and depending on the code we'll have it be
longer (sometimes much so) if it helps the general readability,
e.g. long repetitive declarations or something. For this sort of thing
it's generally preferred.

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 10:50 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Phillip Wood [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Looking at origin/seen:builtin/pull.c we already check if we can
fast-forward and unconditionally merge in that case irrespective of
any '--rebase' option or pull.rebase config. It should be simple for
pull to error out if '--ff-only' is given and we cannot fast-forward.

Excellent.

Even though teaching even more special case on the "git pull" side
makes me feel somewhat dirty, but I think it would be a small price
to pay, and the end result would save an useless fork whose sole
purpose is to make the integration step after fetch fail when "pull"
can easily tell, as you said, that it ought to fail, so overall it
would probably be a net win.

Okay, so it sounds like I should just scrap this patch and try again,
after "pull: cleanup autostash check" is in master, with a patch that
only modifies `git pull` and not `git rebase`. (Unless someone more
experienced wants to take over, which would be fine by me.)

I've just skimmed that whole part of the larger "what should we do"
discussion here, and don't really have an opinion, but I see Phillip
Wood replied to this downthread.

You can grab the branches Junio mentions in What's Cooking from
https://github.com/gitster/git.git, if you'd like to rebase on top of
Felipe's (or from the ML).

And if you fetch from it with:

    fetch = +refs/notes/amlog:refs/notes/amlog

And set:

    [notes]
            displayRef = refs/notes/amlog

You'll get mappings from the mails to the commits Junio applies.

(Note that they're not always 1=1 the same, even after ignoring Junio's
Signed-off-by header, he'll sometimes fix them up as he queues them,
might use a different base for "master" than you did etc.)