Re: [PATCH] rebase: mention --abort alongside --continue

Phillip Wood <[email protected]> writes:

>>> Perhaps the user is not interested in "rebasing" the history at
>>> all, but is instead running a check on each and every commit.
>>> That is, a more expensive version of:
>>>
>>>          for commit in $(git rev-list bottom..top)
>>>          do
>>>                  git reset --hard "$commit" &&
>>>                  do the exec command || break
>>>          done
>>>
>>> that just happens to be shorter to type?
>>> Sure, that's exactly right.

> I think I must be missing something; I had assumed that someone running 
> a check on each commit wanted to ensure it passed, and, if not, they 
> would want to fix the problem that caused the check to fail. In that 
> case I would expect that they would want to amend the failing commit, 
> rather than abort the rebase. What's the scenario where one wants to 
> check a bunch of commits but not fix the ones that fail?

I suspect that is what makes this user "not interested in
'rebasing'".  If finding a single breakage in the history is all
they want to accomplish (perhaps because they merely file a bug
report and make it someone else's job to fix it), they have no
desire to amend and continue the run to find further problems in
subsequent commits.

Which, of course, makes me even less sympathetic to the proposed
change.

Thanks.