From: Stefan Beller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Johannes Sixt <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, git <email@example.com>,
Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] rebase: offer to reschedule failed exec commands automatically
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:56:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kY18SCaCBvkWyeVd+oeJ4EhoJK4=QxGhJ9a77iX2sR8ew@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:08 PM Johannes Sixt <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am 10.12.18 um 20:04 schrieb Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget:
> > The idea was brought up by Paul Morelle.
> > To be honest, this idea of rescheduling a failed exec makes so much sense
> > that I wish we had done this from the get-go.
> The status quo was actually not that bad a decision, because it made 'x
> false' as a substitute for 'break' very convenient.
> But now that we have a real 'break', I'm very much in favor of flipping
> the behavior over to rescheduling. (I'm actually not a user of the
> feature, but the proposed behavior is so compellingly logical.)
In rare cases I had commands that may be dangerous if rerun,
but I'd just not run them with -y but with -x.
That brings me to some confusion I had in the last patch:
To catch a flaky test I surely would be tempted to
git rebase -x make -y "make test"
but that might reschedule a compile failure as well,
as a single -y has implications on all other -x's.
I wonder if it might be better to push this mechanism
one layer down: Instead of having a flag that changes
the behavior of the "exec" instructions and having a
handy '-y' short cut for the new mode, we'd rather have
a new type of command that executes&retries a command
("exnrt", 'n'), which can still get the '-y' command line flag,
but more importantly by having 2 separate sets of
commands we'd have one set that is a one-shot, and the
other that is retried. Then we can teach the user which
is safe and which isn't for rescheduling.
By having two classes, I would anticipate fewer compatibility
issues ('"Exec" behaves differently, and I forgot I had turned
on the rescheduling').
Talking about rescheduling: In the above example the flaky
test can flake more than once, so I'd be stuck with keeping
'git rebase --continue'ing after I see the test flaked once again.
My workflow with interactive rebase and fixing up things as I go
always involves a manual final "make test" to check "for real",
which I could lose now, which is nice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-10 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-10 19:04 [PATCH 0/3] rebase: offer to reschedule failed exec commands automatically Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-12-10 19:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] rebase: introduce --reschedule-failed-exec Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-12-10 23:18 ` Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 10:14 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-12-11 16:16 ` Elijah Newren
2018-12-10 19:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase: add a config option to default to --reschedule-failed-exec Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2021-03-22 11:48 ` [PATCH 0/3] rebase: don't override --no-reschedule-failed-exec with config Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-22 11:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] rebase tests: camel-case rebase.rescheduleFailedExec consistently Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-22 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase tests: use test_unconfig after test_config Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-30 13:53 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-22 11:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: don't override --no-reschedule-failed-exec with config Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-29 14:49 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-29 16:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-03-29 17:15 ` Phillip Wood
2021-03-24 11:50 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Johannes Schindelin
2021-03-30 13:40 ` Phillip Wood
2021-04-09 8:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-04-09 8:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] rebase tests: camel-case rebase.rescheduleFailedExec consistently Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-04-09 8:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rebase: don't override --no-reschedule-failed-exec with config Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-04-15 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Phillip Wood
2018-12-10 19:05 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: introduce a shortcut for --reschedule-failed-exec Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2018-12-10 22:08 ` [PATCH 0/3] rebase: offer to reschedule failed exec commands automatically Johannes Sixt
2018-12-10 22:56 ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2018-12-11 3:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-12-11 10:31 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-12-11 17:36 ` Stefan Beller
2018-12-10 23:20 ` Elijah Newren
2018-12-11 10:19 ` email lags, was " Johannes Schindelin
2018-12-10 23:13 Elijah Newren
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).