Re: [PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping

2013-04-25 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > Normally one would break if unsuccessful. What would fail if this was > replaced by "do_next || break" and the above ".. && return 1" was ".. > && return". I assume that was your first attempt, but why did it not > work? Thanks. This was a major thinko on my part, b

Re: [PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping

2013-04-23 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > On a successful interactive rebase, git-rebase--interactive.sh > currently cleans up and exits on its own. Instead of doing these > two things ourselves: > > rm -fr "$dotest" > git gc --auto > > let us return control to the caller (git-rebase.sh), to do the

Re: [PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping

2013-04-23 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh > index cc3a9a7..9514e31 100644 > --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh > +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh > @@ -597,7 +597,7 @@ do_next () { > fi >

[PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping

2013-04-23 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
On a successful interactive rebase, git-rebase--interactive.sh currently cleans up and exits on its own. Instead of doing these two things ourselves: rm -fr "$dotest" git gc --auto let us return control to the caller (git-rebase.sh), to do the needful. The advantage of doing this is tha