mirror of
https://github.com/git/git.git
synced 2026-01-21 14:27:19 +09:00
6d04ce75c4
In the past, we had different prompts for different types of rebases:
REBASE: for am-based rebases
REBASE-m: for merge-based rebases
REBASE-i: for interactive-based rebases
It's not clear why this distinction was necessary or helpful; when the
prompt was added in commit e75201963f67 ("Improve bash prompt to detect
various states like an unfinished merge", 2007-09-30), it simply added
these three different types. Perhaps there was a useful purpose back
then, but there have been some changes:
* The merge backend was deleted after being implemented on top of the
interactive backend, causing the prompt for merge-based rebases to
change from REBASE-m to REBASE-i.
* The interactive backend is used for multiple different types of
non-interactive rebases, so the "-i" part of the prompt doesn't
really mean what it used to.
* Rebase backends have gained more abilities and have a great deal of
overlap, sometimes making it hard to distinguish them.
* Behavioral differences between the backends have also been ironed
out.
* We want to change the default backend from am to interactive, which
means people would get "REBASE-i" by default if we didn't change
the prompt, and only if they specified --am or --whitespace or -C
would they get the "REBASE" prompt.
* In the future, we plan to have "--whitespace", "-C", and even "--am"
run the interactive backend once it can handle everything the
am-backend can.
For all these reasons, make the prompt for any type of rebase just be
"REBASE".
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc