Re: suggestion for git rebase -i

Previous thread: git diff with add/modified codes by Jon Smirl on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 3:05 pm. (6 messages)

Next thread: [PATCH 0/2] git-stash last-minute fixes by Junio C Hamano on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:59 pm. (4 messages)
From: Seth Falcon
Date: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 9:58 pm

The tempfile used by git rebase -i is called "todo".  For those using
something like emacsclient, this is a bit too generic for the name of
a file in a pre-existing editor session.  I realize this is a small
nit, but how about renaming the file to "git-rebase-todo"?

+ seth

-- 
Seth Falcon | Computational Biology | Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
BioC: http://bioconductor.org/
Blog: http://userprimary.net/user/
-

From: Johannes Schindelin
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:43 am

Hi,


Why?  This is an implementation detail, and should not concern the user.

However, I was thinking about adding a "git rebase --status" to show where 
you are, but that will have to be implemented by someone else, or it has 
to wait a little.

Ciao,
Dscho

-

From: Jeff King
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:45 am

Because if you want to setup macros or syntax highlighting specific to
editing git-rebase tempfiles, then you have to figure out somehow that
you are editing one. Using a more informative name for the tempfile
means that you can guess based on the filename.

-Peff
-

From: Jeff King
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:58 am

Re-reading his original message, I actually don't think this is what he
wanted it for. But I think it's reasonable to give the tempfile a
meaningful name anyway for this reason.

-Peff
-

From: Seth Falcon
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 8:52 am

In the context of an existing editing session, the name of the
tempfile is visible and relevant to the user (not just an
implementation detail).  For example, the tempfile name is useful when
multi-tasking and one needs to get back to the buffer.  As another
reply pointed out, the name could also be used for editor mode
customization.

So.  When editing a commit message, the buffer is named
COMMIT_EDITMSG.  When editing a rebase -i buffer it is named todo.  Is
this a real problem?  Of course not.  But I think a slightly more
descriptive name makes sense -- especially if other commands gain
interactive modes and a user might have a number of them going at once
(in different repos, e.g.).

+ seth
-

From: Johannes Schindelin
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:09 pm

Hi,


Okay, fair enough.  But since you want that feature, you get to do the 
patch.  Hint: it is just one line that has to be changed.

Ciao,
Dscho

-

From: Seth Falcon
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 4:11 pm

Heh, I actually wrote the patch first, but thought it was so
trivial...  :-)

ok, I will send the patch and hopefully not screw up the formatting,
etc.  Feedback and hints welcome.

+ seth
-

Previous thread: git diff with add/modified codes by Jon Smirl on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 3:05 pm. (6 messages)

Next thread: [PATCH 0/2] git-stash last-minute fixes by Junio C Hamano on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:59 pm. (4 messages)