d48e5e21da
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 commitb00bf1c9a8(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 commit00b8be5a4d("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>
17 lines
502 B
C
17 lines
502 B
C
#ifndef REBASE_INTERACTIVE_H
|
|
#define REBASE_INTERACTIVE_H
|
|
|
|
struct strbuf;
|
|
struct repository;
|
|
struct todo_list;
|
|
|
|
void append_todo_help(int command_count,
|
|
const char *shortrevisions, const char *shortonto,
|
|
struct strbuf *buf);
|
|
int edit_todo_list(struct repository *r, struct todo_list *todo_list,
|
|
struct todo_list *new_todo, const char *shortrevisions,
|
|
const char *shortonto, unsigned flags);
|
|
int todo_list_check(struct todo_list *old_todo, struct todo_list *new_todo);
|
|
|
|
#endif
|