| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
When git-am(1) got its own `--empty` option in 7c096b8d61 (am: support
--empty=<option> to handle empty patches, 2021-12-09), `stop` was used
instead of `ask`. `stop` is a more accurate term for describing what
really happens, and consistency is good.
Update git-rebase(1) to also use `stop`, while keeping `ask` as a
deprecated synonym. Update the tests to primarily use `stop`, but also
ensure that `ask` is still allowed.
In a future commit, we'll be adding a new `--empty` option for
git-cherry-pick(1) as well, making the consistency even more relevant.
Reported-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Lyles <brianmlyles@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
The documentation for git-rebase(1) indicates that using the `--exec`
option will use `--empty=drop`. This is inaccurate: when `--interactive`
is not explicitly provided, `--exec` results in `--empty=keep`
behaviors.
Correctly indicate the behavior of `--exec` using `--empty=keep` when
`--interactive` is not specified.
Reported-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Brian Lyles <brianmlyles@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Commit d48e5e21da ("rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the
default", 2020-02-15) turned --keep-empty (for keeping commits which
start empty) into the default. The logic underpinning that commit was:
1) 'git commit' errors out on the creation of empty commits without an
override flag
2) Once someone determines that the override is worthwhile, it's
annoying and/or harmful to required them to take extra steps in
order to keep such commits around (and to repeat such steps with
every rebase).
While the logic on which the decision was made is sound, the result was
a bit of an overcorrection. Instead of jumping to having --keep-empty
being the default, it jumped to making --keep-empty the only available
behavior. There was a simple workaround, though, which was thought to
be good enough at the time. People could still drop commits which
started empty the same way the could drop any commits: by firing up an
interactive rebase and picking out the commits they didn't want from the
list. However, there are cases where external tools might create enough
empty commits that picking all of them out is painful. As such, having
a flag to automatically remove start-empty commits may be beneficial.
Provide users a way to drop commits which start empty using a flag that
existed for years: --no-keep-empty. Interpret --keep-empty as
countermanding any previous --no-keep-empty, but otherwise leaving
--keep-empty as the default.
This might lead to some slight weirdness since commands like
git rebase --empty=drop --keep-empty
git rebase --empty=keep --no-keep-empty
look really weird despite making perfect sense (the first will drop
commits which become empty, but keep commits that started empty; the
second will keep commits which become empty, but drop commits which
started empty). However, --no-keep-empty was named years ago and we are
predominantly keeping it for backward compatibility; also we suspect it
will only be used rarely since folks already have a simple way to drop
commits they don't want with an interactive rebase.
Reported-by: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>
Reported-by: Sami Boukortt <sami@boukortt.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
In commit e98c4269c8 ("rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of
commits that become empty", 2020-02-15), the merge backend was changed
to drop commits that did not start empty but became so after being
applied (because their changes were a subset of what was already
upstream). This new code path did not need to go through the process of
creating a commit, since we were dropping the commit instead.
Unfortunately, this also means we bypassed the clearing of the
CHERRY_PICK_HEAD and MERGE_MSG files, which if there were no further
commits to cherry-pick would mean that the rebase would end but assume
there was still an operation in progress. Ensure that we clear such
state files when we decide to drop the commit.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
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>
|
|
As established in the previous commit and commit b00bf1c9a8dd
(git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default, 2018-06-27), the
behavior for rebase with different backends in various edge or corner
cases is often more happenstance than design. This commit addresses
another such corner case: commits which "become empty".
A careful reader may note that there are two types of commits which would
become empty due to a rebase:
* [clean cherry-pick] Commits which are clean cherry-picks of upstream
commits, as determined by `git log --cherry-mark ...`. Re-applying
these commits would result in an empty set of changes and a
duplicative commit message; i.e. these are commits that have
"already been applied" upstream.
* [become empty] Commits which are not empty to start, are not clean
cherry-picks of upstream commits, but which still become empty after
being rebased. This happens e.g. when a commit has changes which
are a strict subset of the changes in an upstream commit, or when
the changes of a commit can be found spread across or among several
upstream commits.
Clearly, in both cases the changes in the commit in question are found
upstream already, but the commit message may not be in the latter case.
When cherry-mark can determine a commit is already upstream, then
because of how cherry-mark works this means the upstream commit message
was about the *exact* same set of changes. Thus, the commit messages
can be assumed to be fully interchangeable (and are in fact likely to be
completely identical). As such, the clean cherry-pick case represents a
case when there is no information to be gained by keeping the extra
commit around. All rebase types have always dropped these commits, and
no one to my knowledge has ever requested that we do otherwise.
For many of the become empty cases (and likely even most), we will also
be able to drop the commit without loss of information -- but this isn't
quite always the case. Since these commits represent cases that were
not clean cherry-picks, there is no upstream commit message explaining
the same set of changes. Projects with good commit message hygiene will
likely have the explanation from our commit message contained within or
spread among the relevant upstream commits, but not all projects run
that way. As such, the commit message of the commit being rebased may
have reasoning that suggests additional changes that should be made to
adapt to the new base, or it may have information that someone wants to
add as a note to another commit, or perhaps someone even wants to create
an empty commit with the commit message as-is.
Junio commented on the "become-empty" types of commits as follows[1]:
WRT a change that ends up being empty (as opposed to a change that
is empty from the beginning), I'd think that the current behaviour
is desireable one. "am" based rebase is solely to transplant an
existing history and want to stop much less than "interactive" one
whose purpose is to polish a series before making it publishable,
and asking for confirmation ("this has become empty--do you want to
drop it?") is more appropriate from the workflow point of view.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfu1fswdh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
I would simply add that his arguments for "am"-based rebases actually
apply to all non-explicitly-interactive rebases. Also, since we are
stating that different cases should have different defaults, it may be
worth providing a flag to allow users to select which behavior they want
for these commits.
Introduce a new command line flag for selecting the desired behavior:
--empty={drop,keep,ask}
with the definitions:
drop: drop commits which become empty
keep: keep commits which become empty
ask: provide the user a chance to interact and pick what to do with
commits which become empty on a case-by-case basis
In line with Junio's suggestion, if the --empty flag is not specified,
pick defaults as follows:
explicitly interactive: ask
otherwise: drop
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Different rebase backends have different treatment for commits which
start empty (i.e. have no changes relative to their parent), and the
--keep-empty option was added at some point to allow adjusting behavior.
The handling of commits which start empty is actually quite similar to
commit b00bf1c9a8dd (git-rebase: make --allow-empty-message the default,
2018-06-27), which pointed out that the behavior for various backends is
often more happenstance than design. The specific change made in that
commit is actually quite relevant as well and much of the logic there
directly applies here.
It makes a lot of sense in 'git commit' to error out on the creation of
empty commits, unless an override flag is provided. However, once
someone determines that there is a rare case that merits using the
manual override to create such a commit, it is somewhere between
annoying and harmful to have to take extra steps to keep such
intentional commits around. Granted, empty commits are quite rare,
which is why handling of them doesn't get considered much and folks tend
to defer to existing (accidental) behavior and assume there was a reason
for it, leading them to just add flags (--keep-empty in this case) that
allow them to override the bad defaults. Fix the interactive backend so
that --keep-empty is the default, much like we did with
--allow-empty-message. The am backend should also be fixed to have
--keep-empty semantics for commits that start empty, but that is not
included in this patch other than a testcase documenting the failure.
Note that there was one test in t3421 which appears to have been written
expecting --keep-empty to not be the default as correct behavior. This
test was introduced in commit 00b8be5a4d38 ("add tests for rebasing of
empty commits", 2013-06-06), which was part of a series focusing on
rebase topology and which had an interesting original cover letter at
https://lore.kernel.org/git/1347949878-12578-1-git-send-email-martinvonz@gmail.com/
which noted
Your input especially appreciated on whether you agree with the
intent of the test cases.
and then went into a long example about how one of the many tests added
had several questions about whether it was correct. As such, I believe
most the tests in that series were about testing rebase topology with as
many different flags as possible and were not trying to state in general
how those flags should behave otherwise.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
