Two related changes, with separate rationale for each:
Rename the 'interactive' backend to 'merge' because:
* 'interactive' as a name caused confusion; this backend has been used
for many kinds of non-interactive rebases, and will probably be used
in the future for more non-interactive rebases than interactive ones
given that we are making it the default.
* 'interactive' is not the underlying strategy; merging is.
* the directory where state is stored is not called
.git/rebase-interactive but .git/rebase-merge.
Rename the 'am' backend to 'apply' because:
* Few users are familiar with git-am as a reference point.
* Related to the above, the name 'am' makes sentences in the
documentation harder for users to read and comprehend (they may read
it as the verb from "I am"); avoiding this difficult places a large
burden on anyone writing documentation about this backend to be very
careful with quoting and sentence structure and often forces
annoying redundancy to try to avoid such problems.
* Users stumble over pronunciation ("am" as in "I am a person not a
backend" or "am" as in "the first and thirteenth letters in the
alphabet in order are "A-M"); this may drive confusion when one user
tries to explain to another what they are doing.
* While "am" is the tool driving this backend, the tool driving git-am
is git-apply, and since we are driving towards lower-level tools
for the naming of the merge backend we may as well do so here too.
* The directory where state is stored has never been called
.git/rebase-am, it was always called .git/rebase-apply.
For all the reasons listed above:
* Modify the documentation to refer to the backends with the new names
* Provide a brief note in the documentation connecting the new names
to the old names in case users run across the old names anywhere
(e.g. in old release notes or older versions of the documentation)
* Change the (new) --am command line flag to --apply
* Rename some enums, variables, and functions to reinforce the new
backend names for us as well.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have many rebase tests in the testsuite, and often the same test is
repeated multiple times just testing different backends. For those
tests that were specifically trying to test the am backend, add the --am
flag.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test wants to run `git rebase` with the `--keep-empty` option, but
it really only spelled out `--keep` and trusted Git's option parsing to
determine that this was a unique abbreviation of the real option.
However, Denton Liu contributed a patch series in
https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1553354374.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/
that introduces a new `git rebase` option called `--keep-base`, which
makes this previously unique abbreviation non-unique.
Whether this patch series is accepted or not, it is actually a bad
practice to use abbreviated options in our test suite, because of the
issue that those unique option names are not guaranteed to stay unique
in the future.
So let's just not use abbreviated options in the test suite.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The post-rewrite hook is supposed to be invoked for each rewritten
commit. The fact that a commit was selected and processed by the rebase
operation (even though when we hit an error a user said it had no more
useful changes), suggests we should write an entry for it. In
particular, let's treat it as an empty commit trivially squashed into
its parent.
This brings the rebase--am and rebase--merge backends in sync with the
behavior of the interactive rebase backend.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The post-rewrite hook is documented as being invoked by commands that
rewrite commits such as commit --amend and rebase, and that it will
be called for each rewritten commit.
Apparently, the three backends handled --skip'ed commits differently:
am: treat the skipped commit as though it weren't rewritten
merge: same as 'am' backend
interactive: treat skipped commits as having been rewritten to empty
(view them as an empty fixup to their parent)
For now, just add a testcase documenting the different behavior (use
--keep to force usage of the interactive machinery even though we have
no empty commits). A subsequent commit will remove the inconsistency in
--skip handling.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Test 8 in t5407 appears to be an accidental exact duplicate of of test 5;
the testcode is identical and has identical repo state, but the test
description is different and suggests that rebase -m followed by rebase
--skip was what was actually supposed to be tested. Modify the test to
include the -m option.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Usually, when 'git rebase' stops before completing the rebase, it is to
give the user an opportunity to edit a commit (e.g. with the 'edit'
command). In such cases, 'git rebase' leaves the sha1 of the commit being
rewritten in "$state_dir"/stopped-sha, and subsequent 'git rebase
--continue' will call the post-rewrite hook with this sha1 as <old-sha1>
argument to the post-rewrite hook.
The case of 'git rebase' stopping because of a failed 'exec' command is
different: it gives the opportunity to the user to examine or fix the
failure, but does not stop saying "here's a commit to edit, use
--continue when you're done". So, there's no reason to call the
post-rewrite hook for 'exec' commands. If the user did rewrite the
commit, it would be with 'git commit --amend' which already called the
post-rewrite hook.
Fix the behavior to leave no stopped-sha file in case of failed exec
command, and teach 'git rebase --continue' to skip record_in_rewritten if
no stopped-sha file is found.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 'exec' command is sending the current commit to stopped-sha, which is
supposed to contain the original commit (before rebase). As a result, if
an 'exec' command fails, the next 'git rebase --continue' will send the
current commit as <old-sha1> to the post-rewrite hook.
The test currently fails with :
--- expected.data 2015-05-21 17:55:29.000000000 +0000
+++ [...]post-rewrite.data 2015-05-21 17:55:29.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
2362ae8e1b1b865e6161e6f0e165ffb974abf018 488028e9fac0b598b70cbeb594258a917e3f6fab
+488028e9fac0b598b70cbeb594258a917e3f6fab 488028e9fac0b598b70cbeb594258a917e3f6fab
babc8a4c7470895886fc129f1a015c486d05a351 8edffcc4e69a4e696a1d4bab047df450caf99507
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
First expected, then actual.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When "rebase --skip" is used to skip the last patch in the series, the
code to wrap up the rewrite by copying the notes from old to new commits
and also by running the post-rewrite hook was bypassed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The post-rewrite support, in the form of the call to
'record_in_rewritten', was hidden in the arm where we have to record a
new commit for the user. This meant that it was never invoked in the
case where the user has already amended the commit by herself.
[The test is designed to exercise both arms of the 'if' in question.]
Furthermore, recording the stopped-sha (the SHA1 of the commit before
the editing) suffered from a cut&paste error from die_with_patch and
used the wrong variable, hence it never recorded anything.
Noticed by Junio.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Aside from the same issue that rebase also has (remembering the
original commit across a conflict resolution), rebase -i brings an
extra twist: We need to defer writing the rewritten list in the case
of {squash,fixup} because their rewritten result should be the last
commit in the squashed group.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We have to deal with two separate code paths: a normal rebase, which
actually goes through git-am; and rebase {-m|-s}.
The only small issue with both is that they need to remember the
original sha1 across a possible conflict resolution. rebase -m
already puts this information in $dotest/current, and we just
introduce a similar file for git-am.
Note that in git-am, the hook really only runs when coming from
git-rebase: the code path that sets the $dotest/original-commit file
is guarded by a test for $dotest/rebasing.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The rough structure of run_rewrite_hook() comes from
run_receive_hook() in receive-pack.
We introduce a --no-post-rewrite option and use it to avoid the hook
when called from git-rebase -i 'edit'. The next patch will add full
support in git-rebase, and we only want to invoke the hook once.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Elijah Newren
Johannes Schindelin
Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy
Felipe Contreras
Thomas Rast