Git Source Code Mirror - This is a publish-only repository and all pull requests are ignored. Please follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches procedure for any of your improvements. https://git-scm.com/
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
git/builtin/rebase.c

1826 lines
52 KiB

/*
* "git rebase" builtin command
*
* Copyright (c) 2018 Pratik Karki
*/
#define USE_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS
#include "builtin.h"
#include "run-command.h"
#include "exec-cmd.h"
#include "strvec.h"
#include "dir.h"
#include "packfile.h"
#include "refs.h"
#include "quote.h"
#include "config.h"
#include "cache-tree.h"
#include "unpack-trees.h"
#include "lockfile.h"
#include "parse-options.h"
#include "commit.h"
#include "diff.h"
#include "wt-status.h"
#include "revision.h"
#include "commit-reach.h"
#include "rerere.h"
#include "branch.h"
#include "sequencer.h"
#include "rebase-interactive.h"
#include "reset.h"
#include "hook.h"
#define DEFAULT_REFLOG_ACTION "rebase"
static char const * const builtin_rebase_usage[] = {
rebase: teach rebase --keep-base A common scenario is if a user is working on a topic branch and they wish to make some changes to intermediate commits or autosquash, they would run something such as git rebase -i --onto master... master in order to preserve the merge base. This is useful when contributing a patch series to the Git mailing list, one often starts on top of the current 'master'. While developing the patches, 'master' is also developed further and it is sometimes not the best idea to keep rebasing on top of 'master', but to keep the base commit as-is. In addition to this, a user wishing to test individual commits in a topic branch without changing anything may run git rebase -x ./test.sh master... master Since rebasing onto the merge base of the branch and the upstream is such a common case, introduce the --keep-base option as a shortcut. This allows us to rewrite the above as git rebase -i --keep-base master and git rebase -x ./test.sh --keep-base master respectively. Add tests to ensure --keep-base works correctly in the normal case and fails when there are multiple merge bases, both in regular and interactive mode. Also, test to make sure conflicting options cause rebase to fail. While we're adding test cases, add a missing set_fake_editor call to 'rebase -i --onto master...side'. While we're documenting the --keep-base option, change an instance of "merge-base" to "merge base", which is the consistent spelling. Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
3 years ago
N_("git rebase [-i] [options] [--exec <cmd>] "
"[--onto <newbase> | --keep-base] [<upstream> [<branch>]]"),
N_("git rebase [-i] [options] [--exec <cmd>] [--onto <newbase>] "
"--root [<branch>]"),
N_("git rebase --continue | --abort | --skip | --edit-todo"),
NULL
};
static GIT_PATH_FUNC(path_squash_onto, "rebase-merge/squash-onto")
static GIT_PATH_FUNC(path_interactive, "rebase-merge/interactive")
static GIT_PATH_FUNC(apply_dir, "rebase-apply")
static GIT_PATH_FUNC(merge_dir, "rebase-merge")
enum rebase_type {
REBASE_UNSPECIFIED = -1,
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
REBASE_APPLY,
REBASE_MERGE
};
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty 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>
3 years ago
enum empty_type {
EMPTY_UNSPECIFIED = -1,
EMPTY_DROP,
EMPTY_KEEP,
EMPTY_ASK
};
struct rebase_options {
enum rebase_type type;
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty 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>
3 years ago
enum empty_type empty;
const char *default_backend;
const char *state_dir;
struct commit *upstream;
const char *upstream_name;
const char *upstream_arg;
char *head_name;
struct object_id orig_head;
struct commit *onto;
const char *onto_name;
const char *revisions;
const char *switch_to;
int root, root_with_onto;
struct object_id *squash_onto;
struct commit *restrict_revision;
int dont_finish_rebase;
enum {
REBASE_NO_QUIET = 1<<0,
REBASE_VERBOSE = 1<<1,
REBASE_DIFFSTAT = 1<<2,
REBASE_FORCE = 1<<3,
REBASE_INTERACTIVE_EXPLICIT = 1<<4,
} flags;
struct strvec git_am_opts;
const char *action;
int signoff;
int allow_rerere_autoupdate;
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty 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>
3 years ago
int keep_empty;
int autosquash;
char *gpg_sign_opt;
int autostash;
int committer_date_is_author_date;
int ignore_date;
char *cmd;
int allow_empty_message;
int rebase_merges, rebase_cousins;
char *strategy, *strategy_opts;
struct strbuf git_format_patch_opt;
int reschedule_failed_exec;
int reapply_cherry_picks;
int fork_point;
};
#define REBASE_OPTIONS_INIT { \
.type = REBASE_UNSPECIFIED, \
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty 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>
3 years ago
.empty = EMPTY_UNSPECIFIED, \
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty 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>
3 years ago
.keep_empty = 1, \
.default_backend = "merge", \
.flags = REBASE_NO_QUIET, \
.git_am_opts = STRVEC_INIT, \
.git_format_patch_opt = STRBUF_INIT, \
.fork_point = -1, \
}
static struct replay_opts get_replay_opts(const struct rebase_options *opts)
{
struct replay_opts replay = REPLAY_OPTS_INIT;
replay.action = REPLAY_INTERACTIVE_REBASE;
replay.strategy = NULL;
sequencer_init_config(&replay);
replay.signoff = opts->signoff;
replay.allow_ff = !(opts->flags & REBASE_FORCE);
if (opts->allow_rerere_autoupdate)
replay.allow_rerere_auto = opts->allow_rerere_autoupdate;
replay.allow_empty = 1;
replay.allow_empty_message = opts->allow_empty_message;
rebase (interactive-backend): fix handling of commits that become empty 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>
3 years ago
replay.drop_redundant_commits = (opts->empty == EMPTY_DROP);
replay.keep_redundant_commits = (opts->empty == EMPTY_KEEP);
replay.quiet = !(opts->flags & REBASE_NO_QUIET);
replay.verbose = opts->flags & REBASE_VERBOSE;
replay.reschedule_failed_exec = opts->reschedule_failed_exec;
replay.committer_date_is_author_date =
opts->committer_date_is_author_date;
replay.ignore_date = opts->ignore_date;
replay.gpg_sign = xstrdup_or_null(opts->gpg_sign_opt);
if (opts->strategy)
builtin/rebase: fix options.strategy memory lifecycle - cmd_rebase populates rebase_options.strategy with newly allocated strings, hence we need to free those strings at the end of cmd_rebase to avoid a leak. - In some cases: get_replay_opts() is called, which prepares replay_opts using data from rebase_options. We used to simply copy the pointer from rebase_options.strategy, however that would now result in a double-free because sequencer_remove_state() is eventually used to free replay_opts.strategy. To avoid this we xstrdup() strategy when adding it to replay_opts. The original leak happens because we always populate rebase_options.strategy, but we don't always enter the path that calls get_replay_opts() and later sequencer_remove_state() - in other words we'd always allocate a new string into rebase_options.strategy but only sometimes did we free it. We now make sure that rebase_options and replay_opts both own their own copies of strategy, and each copy is free'd independently. This was first seen when running t0021 with LSAN, but t2012 helped catch the fact that we can't just free(options.strategy) at the end of cmd_rebase (as that can cause a double-free). LSAN output from t0021: LSAN output from t0021: Direct leak of 4 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: #0 0x486804 in strdup ../projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_interceptors.cpp:452:3 #1 0xa71eb8 in xstrdup wrapper.c:29:14 #2 0x61b1cc in cmd_rebase builtin/rebase.c:1779:22 #3 0x4ce83e in run_builtin git.c:475:11 #4 0x4ccafe in handle_builtin git.c:729:3 #5 0x4cb01c in run_argv git.c:818:4 #6 0x4cb01c in cmd_main git.c:949:19 #7 0x6b3fad in main common-main.c:52:11 #8 0x7f267b512349 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x24349) SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: 4 byte(s) leaked in 1 allocation(s). Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hunt <andrzej@ahunt.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
1 year ago
replay.strategy = xstrdup_or_null(opts->strategy);
else if (!replay.strategy && replay.default_strategy) {
replay.strategy = replay.default_strategy;
replay.default_strategy = NULL;
}
if (opts->strategy_opts)
parse_strategy_opts(&replay, opts->strategy_opts);
if (opts->squash_onto) {
oidcpy(&replay.squash_onto, opts->squash_onto);
replay.have_squash_onto = 1;
}
return replay;
}
enum action {
ACTION_NONE = 0,
ACTION_CONTINUE,
ACTION_SKIP,
ACTION_ABORT,
ACTION_QUIT,
ACTION_EDIT_TODO,
ACTION_SHOW_CURRENT_PATCH
};
static const char *action_names[] = { "undefined",
"continue",
"skip",
"abort",
"quit",
"edit_todo",
"show_current_patch" };
static int edit_todo_file(unsigned flags)
{
const char *todo_file = rebase_path_todo();
struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT,
new_todo = TODO_LIST_INIT;
int res = 0;
if (strbuf_read_file(&todo_list.buf, todo_file, 0) < 0)
return error_errno(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file);
strbuf_stripspace(&todo_list.buf, 1);
res = edit_todo_list(the_repository, &todo_list, &new_todo, NULL, NULL, flags);
if (!res && todo_list_write_to_file(the_repository, &new_todo, todo_file,
NULL, NULL, -1, flags & ~(TODO_LIST_SHORTEN_IDS)))
res = error_errno(_("could not write '%s'"), todo_file);
todo_list_release(&todo_list);
todo_list_release(&new_todo);
return res;
}
static int get_revision_ranges(struct commit *upstream, struct commit *onto,
struct object_id *orig_head, char **revisions,
char **shortrevisions)
{
struct commit *base_rev = upstream ? upstream : onto;
const char *shorthead;
*revisions = xstrfmt("%s...%s", oid_to_hex(&base_rev->object.oid),
oid_to_hex(orig_head));
rebase -i: stop checking out the tip of the branch to rebase One of the first things done when using a sequencer-based rebase (ie. `rebase -i', `rebase -r', or `rebase -m') is to make a todo list. This requires knowledge of the commit range to rebase. To get the oid of the last commit of the range, the tip of the branch to rebase is checked out with prepare_branch_to_be_rebased(), then the oid of the head is read. After this, the tip of the branch is not even modified. The `am' backend, on the other hand, does not check out the branch. On big repositories, it's a performance penalty: with `rebase -i', the user may have to wait before editing the todo list while git is extracting the branch silently, and "quiet" rebases will be slower than `am'. Since we already have the oid of the tip of the branch in `opts->orig_head', it's useless to switch to this commit. This removes the call to prepare_branch_to_be_rebased() in do_interactive_rebase(), and adds a `orig_head' parameter to get_revision_ranges(). prepare_branch_to_be_rebased() is removed as it is no longer used. This introduces a visible change: as we do not switch on the tip of the branch to rebase, no reflog entry is created at the beginning of the rebase for it. Unscientific performance measurements, performed on linux.git, are as follow: Before this patch: $ time git rebase -m --onto v4.18 463fa44eec2fef50~ 463fa44eec2fef50 real 0m8,940s user 0m6,830s sys 0m2,121s After this patch: $ time git rebase -m --onto v4.18 463fa44eec2fef50~ 463fa44eec2fef50 real 0m1,834s user 0m0,916s sys 0m0,206s Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
3 years ago
shorthead = find_unique_abbrev(orig_head, DEFAULT_ABBREV);
if (upstream) {
const char *shortrev;
shortrev = find_unique_abbrev(&base_rev->object.oid,
DEFAULT_ABBREV);
*shortrevisions = xstrfmt("%s..%s", shortrev, shorthead);
} else
*shortrevisions = xstrdup(shorthead);
return 0;
}
static int init_basic_state(struct replay_opts *opts, const char *head_name,
struct commit *onto,
const struct object_id *orig_head)
{
FILE *interactive;
if (!is_directory(merge_dir()) && mkdir_in_gitdir(merge_dir()))
return error_errno(_("could not create temporary %s"), merge_dir());
delete_reflog("REBASE_HEAD");
interactive = fopen(path_interactive(), "w");
if (!interactive)
return error_errno(_("could not mark as interactive"));
fclose(interactive);
return write_basic_state(opts, head_name, onto, orig_head);
}
static void split_exec_commands(const char *cmd, struct string_list *commands)
{
if (cmd && *cmd) {
string_list_split(commands, cmd, '\n', -1);
/* rebase.c adds a new line to cmd after every command,
* so here the last command is always empty */
string_list_remove_empty_items(commands, 0);
}
}
static int do_interactive_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts, unsigned flags)
{
int ret;
char *revisions = NULL, *shortrevisions = NULL;
struct strvec make_script_args = STRVEC_INIT;
struct todo_list todo_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
struct replay_opts replay = get_replay_opts(opts);
struct string_list commands = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
rebase -i: stop checking out the tip of the branch to rebase One of the first things done when using a sequencer-based rebase (ie. `rebase -i', `rebase -r', or `rebase -m') is to make a todo list. This requires knowledge of the commit range to rebase. To get the oid of the last commit of the range, the tip of the branch to rebase is checked out with prepare_branch_to_be_rebased(), then the oid of the head is read. After this, the tip of the branch is not even modified. The `am' backend, on the other hand, does not check out the branch. On big repositories, it's a performance penalty: with `rebase -i', the user may have to wait before editing the todo list while git is extracting the branch silently, and "quiet" rebases will be slower than `am'. Since we already have the oid of the tip of the branch in `opts->orig_head', it's useless to switch to this commit. This removes the call to prepare_branch_to_be_rebased() in do_interactive_rebase(), and adds a `orig_head' parameter to get_revision_ranges(). prepare_branch_to_be_rebased() is removed as it is no longer used. This introduces a visible change: as we do not switch on the tip of the branch to rebase, no reflog entry is created at the beginning of the rebase for it. Unscientific performance measurements, performed on linux.git, are as follow: Before this patch: $ time git rebase -m --onto v4.18 463fa44eec2fef50~ 463fa44eec2fef50 real 0m8,940s user 0m6,830s sys 0m2,121s After this patch: $ time git rebase -m --onto v4.18 463fa44eec2fef50~ 463fa44eec2fef50 real 0m1,834s user 0m0,916s sys 0m0,206s Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
3 years ago
if (get_revision_ranges(opts->upstream, opts->onto, &opts->orig_head,
&revisions, &shortrevisions))
return -1;
if (init_basic_state(&replay,
opts->head_name ? opts->head_name : "detached HEAD",
opts->onto, &opts->orig_head)) {
free(revisions);
free(shortrevisions);
return -1;
}
if (!opts->upstream && opts->squash_onto)
write_file(path_squash_onto(), "%s\n",
oid_to_hex(opts->squash_onto));
strvec_pushl(&make_script_args, "", revisions, NULL);
if (opts->restrict_revision)
strvec_pushf(&make_script_args, "^%s",
oid_to_hex(&opts->restrict_revision->object.oid));
ret = sequencer_make_script(the_repository, &todo_list.buf,
make_script_args.nr, make_script_args.v,
flags);
if (ret)
error(_("could not generate todo list"));
else {
discard_cache();
if (todo_list_parse_insn_buffer(the_repository, todo_list.buf.buf,
&todo_list))
BUG("unusable todo list");
split_exec_commands(opts->cmd, &commands);
ret = complete_action(the_repository, &replay, flags,
shortrevisions, opts->onto_name, opts->onto,
&opts->orig_head, &commands, opts->autosquash,
&todo_list);
}
string_list_clear(&commands, 0);
free(revisions);
free(shortrevisions);
todo_list_release(&todo_list);
strvec_clear(&make_script_args);
return ret;
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
static int run_sequencer_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts,
enum action command)
{
unsigned flags = 0;
int abbreviate_commands = 0, ret = 0;
git_config_get_bool("rebase.abbreviatecommands", &abbreviate_commands);
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty 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>
3 years ago
flags |= opts->keep_empty ? TODO_LIST_KEEP_EMPTY : 0;
flags |= abbreviate_commands ? TODO_LIST_ABBREVIATE_CMDS : 0;
flags |= opts->rebase_merges ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_MERGES : 0;
flags |= opts->rebase_cousins > 0 ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_COUSINS : 0;
flags |= opts->root_with_onto ? TODO_LIST_ROOT_WITH_ONTO : 0;
flags |= opts->reapply_cherry_picks ? TODO_LIST_REAPPLY_CHERRY_PICKS : 0;
flags |= opts->flags & REBASE_NO_QUIET ? TODO_LIST_WARN_SKIPPED_CHERRY_PICKS : 0;
switch (command) {
case ACTION_NONE: {
if (!opts->onto && !opts->upstream)
die(_("a base commit must be provided with --upstream or --onto"));
ret = do_interactive_rebase(opts, flags);
break;
}
case ACTION_SKIP: {
struct string_list merge_rr = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
rerere_clear(the_repository, &merge_rr);
}
/* fallthrough */
case ACTION_CONTINUE: {
struct replay_opts replay_opts = get_replay_opts(opts);
ret = sequencer_continue(the_repository, &replay_opts);
break;
}
case ACTION_EDIT_TODO:
ret = edit_todo_file(flags);
break;
case ACTION_SHOW_CURRENT_PATCH: {
struct child_process cmd = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
cmd.git_cmd = 1;
strvec_pushl(&cmd.args, "show", "REBASE_HEAD", "--", NULL);
ret = run_command(&cmd);
break;
}
default:
BUG("invalid command '%d'", command);
}
return ret;
}
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty 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>
3 years ago
static void imply_merge(struct rebase_options *opts, const char *option);
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default 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>
3 years ago
static int parse_opt_keep_empty(const struct option *opt, const char *arg,
int unset)
{
struct rebase_options *opts = opt->value;
BUG_ON_OPT_ARG(arg);
rebase: reinstate --no-keep-empty 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>
3 years ago
imply_merge(opts, unset ? "--no-keep-empty" : "--keep-empty");
opts->keep_empty = !unset;
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
opts->type = REBASE_MERGE;
rebase (interactive-backend): make --keep-empty the default 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>
3 years ago
return 0;
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
static int is_merge(struct rebase_options *opts)
{
return opts->type == REBASE_MERGE;
}
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
static void imply_merge(struct rebase_options *opts, const char *option)
{
switch (opts->type) {
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
case REBASE_APPLY:
die(_("%s requires the merge backend"), option);
break;
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
case REBASE_MERGE:
break;
default:
rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends 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>
3 years ago
opts->type = REBASE_MERGE; /* implied */
break;
}
}
/* Returns the filename prefixed by the state_dir */
static const char *state_dir_path(const char *filename, struct rebase_options *opts)
{
static struct strbuf path = STRBUF_INIT;
static size_t prefix_len;
if (!prefix_len) {
strbuf_addf(&path, "%s/", opts->state_dir);
prefix_len = path.len;
}
strbuf_setlen(&path, prefix_len);
strbuf_addstr(&path, filename);
return path.buf;
}
/* Initialize the rebase options from the state directory. */
static int read_basic_state(struct rebase_options *opts)
{
struct strbuf head_name = STRBUF_INIT;
struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
struct object_id oid;
if (!read_oneliner(&head_name, state_dir_path("head-name", opts),
READ_ONELINER_WARN_MISSING) ||
!read_oneliner(&buf, state_dir_path("onto", opts),
READ_ONELINER_WARN_MISSING))
return -1;
opts->head_name = starts_with(head_name.buf, "refs/") ?
xstrdup(head_name.buf) : NULL;
strbuf_release(&head_name);
if (get_oid(buf.buf, &oid))
return error(_("could not get 'onto': '%s'"), buf.buf);
opts->onto = lookup_commit_or_die(&oid, buf.buf);
/*
* We always write to orig-head, but interactive rebase used to write to
* head. Fall back to reading from head to cover for the case that the
* user upgraded git with an ongoing interactive rebase.
*/
strbuf_reset(&buf);
if (file_exists(state_dir_path("orig-head", opts))) {
if (!read_oneliner(&buf, state_dir_path("orig-head", opts),
READ_ONELINER_WARN_MISSING))
return -1;
} else if (!read_oneliner(&buf, state_dir_path("head", opts),
READ_ONELINER_WARN_MISSING))
return -1;
if (get_oid(buf.buf, &opts->orig_head))
return error(_("invalid orig-head: '%s'"), buf.buf);
if (file_exists(state_dir_path("quiet", opts)))