Update the die() preserve-merges messages to help some users

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Git will die if a "rebase --preserve-merges" is in progress. Users cannot --quit, --abort or --continue the rebase.

This sceario can occur if the user updates their Git, or switches to another newer version, after starting a preserve-merges rebase, commonly via the pull setting.

One trigger is an unexpectedly difficult to resolve conflict, as reported on the git-users group.
(https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM)

Tell the user the cause, i.e. the existence of the directory. The problem must be resolved manually, git rebase --<option> commands will die, or the user must downgrade. Also, note that the deleted options are no longer shown in the documentation.

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

The --preserve-merges option was removed by v2.35.0. However users may not be aware that it is also a Pull option, and it is still offered by major IDE vendors such as Visual Studio.

Extend the --preserve-merges die message to direct users to this option and it's locations.

Signed-off-by Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

---
 builtin/rebase.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

builtin/rebase.c +0 -0

index 07221d0ae41..97f704bb297 100644

Quoted 20 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

The --preserve-merges option was removed by v2.35.0. However users may not be aware that it is also a Pull option, and it is still offered by major IDE vendors such as Visual Studio.

Extend the --preserve-merges die message to direct users to this option and it's locations.

Signed-off-by Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

---
 builtin/rebase.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

builtin/rebase.c +0 -0

index 07221d0ae41..97f704bb297 100644

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1211

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +4 -1

@@ -1205,7 +1205,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 			     builtin_rebase_usage, 0);
 
 	if (preserve_merges_selected)
-		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges"));
+		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges\n"
+			"Also, check your `pull` configuration settings\n"
+			"`git config --show-scope --show-origin --get-regexp 'pull.*'`\n"
+			"which may also invoke this option."));

I may be missing some subtlety, but how is the user ever going to need to check their config?

After 52f1e82178e (pull: remove support for --rebase=preserve, 2021-09-07) we:

    $ git -c pull.rebase=preserve pull
    error: rebase.c:29: preserve: 'preserve' superseded by 'merges'
    fatal: builtin/pull.c:45: Invalid value for pull.rebase: preserve

I.e. we'd error before this, and the "preserve_merges_selected" variable being checked here is not affected by config, i.e. we only ever got to this "via config" route if "pull" et al was invoking us.

But now that command dies.

If there is still a codepath where we call "rebase --preserve-merges" on the basis of config that I've missed, shouldn't this die() be happening there?

Quoted 9 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Git will die if a "rebase --preserve-merges" is in progress. Users cannot --quit, --abort or --continue the rebase.

This sceario can occur if the user updates their Git, or switches to another newer version, after starting a preserve-merges rebase, commonly via the pull setting.

Quoted 8 lines

One trigger is an unexpectedly difficult to resolve conflict, as reported on the git-users group.
(https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM)

Tell the user the cause, i.e. the existence of the directory. The problem must be resolved manually, git rebase --<option> commands will die, or the user must downgrade. Also, note that the deleted options are no longer shown in the documentation.

I can go and read the linked thread for the answer, but:

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1189

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +3 -1

 		if (is_directory(buf.buf)) {
-			die("`rebase -p` is no longer supported");
+			die("`rebase --preserve-merges` (-p) is no longer supported.\n"
+			"You still have a `.git/rebase-merge/rewritten` directory, \n"
+			"indicating a `rebase preserve-merge` is still in progress.\n");
 		} else {
 			strbuf_reset(&buf);
 			strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s/interactive", merge_dir());

As much of an improvement this is, I'd be no closer to knowing what I should do at this point.

Should I "rm -rf" that directory, downgrade my version of git if I'd like to recover my work (as the message alludes to).

In either case I'd think that this is getting a bit past the length where we'd have just a die() v.s. splitting it into a die()/advise() pair. I.e. to have the advise() carry some bullet-point list about X/Y/Z solutions, with the die() being a brief ~"we did because xyz dir is still here".

Quoted 44 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 20 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

The --preserve-merges option was removed by v2.35.0. However users may not be aware that it is also a Pull option, and it is still offered by major IDE vendors such as Visual Studio.

Extend the --preserve-merges die message to direct users to this option and it's locations.

Signed-off-by Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

---
 builtin/rebase.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

builtin/rebase.c +0 -0

index 07221d0ae41..97f704bb297 100644

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1211

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +4 -1

@@ -1205,7 +1205,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 			     builtin_rebase_usage, 0);
 
 	if (preserve_merges_selected)
-		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges"));
+		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges\n"
+			"Also, check your `pull` configuration settings\n"
+			"`git config --show-scope --show-origin --get-regexp 'pull.*'`\n"
+			"which may also invoke this option."));

I may be missing some subtlety, but how is the user ever going to need to check their config?

After 52f1e82178e (pull: remove support for --rebase=preserve, 2021-09-07) we:

    $ git -c pull.rebase=preserve pull
    error: rebase.c:29: preserve: 'preserve' superseded by 'merges'
    fatal: builtin/pull.c:45: Invalid value for pull.rebase: preserve

I.e. we'd error before this, and the "preserve_merges_selected" variable being checked here is not affected by config, i.e. we only ever got to this "via config" route if "pull" et al was invoking us.

Quoted 5 lines

But now that command dies.

If there is still a codepath where we call "rebase --preserve-merges" on the basis of config that I've missed, shouldn't this die() be happening there?

Hi Ævar,

The preserve merges is a pull config item, still supported by Visual Studio, so could easily be set for many users. When they click on the "Pull" menu and get the old die() fatal: message they won't know why this happened or how to resolve it. Hence the extra info.

If the user was actually running a rebase command then, yes, they would/should be reasonably OK with the original error message telling them what was wrong with their command line. But a git pull? especially as the manual says nothing about preserve merges any more.

If we are to remove a capability the give up and die messages should be helpful in the edge cases. The issue (needing to check the pull, as well as the rebase configs) has already shown on the git-users list. It took a while to workout how it all happened.

Not sure if I've covered your concerns properly, but this is one of the places that can and warn the user.

This small update to the die() preserve-merges messages is a response to the reported edge case in the Git-for-Windows googlegroups thread
[https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM] where even git rebase --continue would die.

It is most relevant for Windows because Visual Studio still offers the option to run git pull --preserve, therefore Git for Windows already applied these patches. The improvements are not specific to Windows, though, and should therefore also get into core Git, albeit at a more leisurely pace.

This is a companion patch series to
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/3708

Philip Oakley (2):
rebase: help user when dying with preserve-merges`
rebase: preserve is also a pull option, tell dying users

  builtin/rebase.c | 9 +++++++--
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

base-commit: e6ebfd0e8cbbd10878070c8a356b5ad1b3ca464e
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1155%2Fdscho%2Fdie_preserve-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1155/dscho/die_preserve-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1155

Hi Philip

Quoted 7 lines · Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget

This small update to the die() preserve-merges messages is a response to the
reported edge case in the Git-for-Windows googlegroups thread
[https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM] where even git
rebase --continue would die.

Quoted 6 lines

It is most relevant for Windows because Visual Studio still offers the option to run git pull --preserve, therefore Git for Windows already applied
these patches. The improvements are not specific to Windows, though, and should therefore also get into core Git, albeit at a more leisurely pace.

I think the new messages are an improvement, I was wondering how difficult it would be to allow the user to run rebase --abort so they can at least easily start again with --rebase-merges.

Best Wishes

Phillip

Quoted 17 lines

This is a companion patch series to
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/3708

Philip Oakley (2):
   rebase: help user when dying with preserve-merges`
   rebase: preserve is also a pull option, tell dying users

  builtin/rebase.c | 9 +++++++--

  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

base-commit: e6ebfd0e8cbbd10878070c8a356b5ad1b3ca464e Published-As:
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1155%2Fdscho%2Fdie_preserve-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git
pr-1155/dscho/die_preserve-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1155

Quoted 32 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 9 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Git will die if a "rebase --preserve-merges" is in progress. Users cannot --quit, --abort or --continue the rebase.

This sceario can occur if the user updates their Git, or switches to another newer version, after starting a preserve-merges rebase, commonly via the pull setting.

Quoted 8 lines

One trigger is an unexpectedly difficult to resolve conflict, as reported on the git-users group.
(https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM)

Tell the user the cause, i.e. the existence of the directory. The problem must be resolved manually, git rebase --<option> commands will die, or the user must downgrade. Also, note that the deleted options are no longer shown in the documentation.

I can go and read the linked thread for the answer, but:

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1189

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +3 -1

 		if (is_directory(buf.buf)) {
-			die("`rebase -p` is no longer supported");
+			die("`rebase --preserve-merges` (-p) is no longer supported.\n"
+			"You still have a `.git/rebase-merge/rewritten` directory, \n"
+			"indicating a `rebase preserve-merge` is still in progress.\n");
 		} else {
 			strbuf_reset(&buf);
 			strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s/interactive", merge_dir());

As much of an improvement this is, I'd be no closer to knowing what I should do at this point.

Quoted 10 lines

Should I "rm -rf" that directory, downgrade my version of git if I'd like to recover my work (as the message alludes to).

In either case I'd think that this is getting a bit past the length where we'd have just a die() v.s. splitting it into a die()/advise() pair. I.e. to have the advise() carry some bullet-point list about X/Y/Z solutions, with the die() being a brief ~"we did because xyz dir is still here".

Hi Ævar,

Exactly. This is a slightly special, but real, case. The previous message was essentially totally opaque to users. An "If I were you I wouldn't start from here" response is somewhat true, so we simply tell the user how they got to receive the fatal message. They can then take any of the options they choose.

Ultimately the user downgraded and managed to use "rebase --continue", as advised by Git, without the response "fatal:" to complete their old preserve-merges rebase.

They'll hit a similar fault in short order because when they next pull they'll be slipped into trying the preserve-merge rebase again - that's the 2/2 patch, making sure they know why.

Hi Ævar,

Quoted 62 lines · Philip Oakley

Quoted 44 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 20 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

The --preserve-merges option was removed by v2.35.0. However users may not be aware that it is also a Pull option, and it is still offered by major IDE vendors such as Visual Studio.

Extend the --preserve-merges die message to direct users to this option and it's locations.

Signed-off-by Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

---
 builtin/rebase.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

builtin/rebase.c +0 -0

index 07221d0ae41..97f704bb297 100644

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1211

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +4 -1

@@ -1205,7 +1205,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 			     builtin_rebase_usage, 0);
 
 	if (preserve_merges_selected)
-		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges"));
+		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges\n"
+			"Also, check your `pull` configuration settings\n"
+			"`git config --show-scope --show-origin --get-regexp 'pull.*'`\n"
+			"which may also invoke this option."));

I may be missing some subtlety, but how is the user ever going to need to check their config?

After 52f1e82178e (pull: remove support for --rebase=preserve, 2021-09-07) we:

    $ git -c pull.rebase=preserve pull
    error: rebase.c:29: preserve: 'preserve' superseded by 'merges'
    fatal: builtin/pull.c:45: Invalid value for pull.rebase: preserve

I.e. we'd error before this, and the "preserve_merges_selected" variable being checked here is not affected by config, i.e. we only ever got to this "via config" route if "pull" et al was invoking us.

Quoted 5 lines

But now that command dies.

If there is still a codepath where we call "rebase --preserve-merges" on the basis of config that I've missed, shouldn't this die() be happening there?

Hi Ævar,

The preserve merges is a pull config item, still supported by Visual Studio, so could easily be set for many users. When they click on the "Pull" menu and get the old die() fatal: message they won't know why this happened or how to resolve it. Hence the extra info.

If the user was actually running a rebase command then, yes, they would/should be reasonably OK with the original error message telling them what was wrong with their command line. But a git pull? especially as the manual says nothing about preserve merges any more.

Quoted 9 lines

If we are to remove a capability the give up and die messages should be helpful in the edge cases. The issue (needing to check the pull, as well as the rebase configs) has already shown on the git-users list. It took a while to workout how it all happened.

Not sure if I've covered your concerns properly, but this is one of the places that can and warn the user.

I don't think that came out well. For this message, it's about reminding users that they may *also* be using the preserve option within their pull options, and not just within their rebase command's options.

A case of "don't use it here, and don't use it there either, please check".

Quoted 51 lines · Philip Oakley

Quoted 32 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 9 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Git will die if a "rebase --preserve-merges" is in progress. Users cannot --quit, --abort or --continue the rebase.

This sceario can occur if the user updates their Git, or switches to another newer version, after starting a preserve-merges rebase, commonly via the pull setting.

Quoted 8 lines

One trigger is an unexpectedly difficult to resolve conflict, as reported on the git-users group.
(https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM)

Tell the user the cause, i.e. the existence of the directory. The problem must be resolved manually, git rebase --<option> commands will die, or the user must downgrade. Also, note that the deleted options are no longer shown in the documentation.

I can go and read the linked thread for the answer, but:

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1189

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +3 -1

 		if (is_directory(buf.buf)) {
-			die("`rebase -p` is no longer supported");
+			die("`rebase --preserve-merges` (-p) is no longer supported.\n"
+			"You still have a `.git/rebase-merge/rewritten` directory, \n"
+			"indicating a `rebase preserve-merge` is still in progress.\n");
 		} else {
 			strbuf_reset(&buf);
 			strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s/interactive", merge_dir());

As much of an improvement this is, I'd be no closer to knowing what I should do at this point.

Quoted 10 lines

Should I "rm -rf" that directory, downgrade my version of git if I'd like to recover my work (as the message alludes to).

In either case I'd think that this is getting a bit past the length where we'd have just a die() v.s. splitting it into a die()/advise() pair. I.e. to have the advise() carry some bullet-point list about X/Y/Z solutions, with the die() being a brief ~"we did because xyz dir is still here".

Hi Ævar,

Exactly. This is a slightly special, but real, case. The previous message was essentially totally opaque to users. An "If I were you I wouldn't start from here" response is somewhat true, so we simply tell the user how they got to receive the fatal message. They can then take any of the options they choose.

Quoted 3 lines

Ultimately the user downgraded and managed to use "rebase --continue", as advised by Git, without the response "fatal:" to complete their old preserve-merges rebase.

Right. I'm pointing out that in this proposed version of the die() message we stop just short of actually telling the user how to proceed.

I.e. just that they have a X directory, not that they should either remove X and lose their work, or downgrade git, proceed, and then upgrade git.

Quoted 3 lines

They'll hit a similar fault in short order because when they next pull they'll be slipped into trying the preserve-merge rebase again - that's the 2/2 patch, making sure they know why.

Well, this is "rebase". You can have been running rebases in a repository without ever having any interactions with remotes.

And even if you had interactions with remotes you might be doing so via "git fetch" followed by "git rebase", and might not ever invoke "git pull".

And even if you did a "git pull" later shouldn't the error you got here be sufficiently stand-alone as to tell you what to do, without needing a later "pull"?

Quoted 78 lines · Philip Oakley

Hi Ævar,

Quoted 62 lines · Philip Oakley

Quoted 44 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 20 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

The --preserve-merges option was removed by v2.35.0. However users may not be aware that it is also a Pull option, and it is still offered by major IDE vendors such as Visual Studio.

Extend the --preserve-merges die message to direct users to this option and it's locations.

Signed-off-by Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

---
 builtin/rebase.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

builtin/rebase.c +0 -0

index 07221d0ae41..97f704bb297 100644

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1211

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +4 -1

@@ -1205,7 +1205,10 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 			     builtin_rebase_usage, 0);
 
 	if (preserve_merges_selected)
-		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges"));
+		die(_("--preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges\n"
+			"Also, check your `pull` configuration settings\n"
+			"`git config --show-scope --show-origin --get-regexp 'pull.*'`\n"
+			"which may also invoke this option."));

I may be missing some subtlety, but how is the user ever going to need to check their config?

After 52f1e82178e (pull: remove support for --rebase=preserve, 2021-09-07) we:

    $ git -c pull.rebase=preserve pull
    error: rebase.c:29: preserve: 'preserve' superseded by 'merges'
    fatal: builtin/pull.c:45: Invalid value for pull.rebase: preserve

I.e. we'd error before this, and the "preserve_merges_selected" variable being checked here is not affected by config, i.e. we only ever got to this "via config" route if "pull" et al was invoking us.

Quoted 5 lines

But now that command dies.

If there is still a codepath where we call "rebase --preserve-merges" on the basis of config that I've missed, shouldn't this die() be happening there?

Hi Ævar,

The preserve merges is a pull config item, still supported by Visual Studio, so could easily be set for many users. When they click on the "Pull" menu and get the old die() fatal: message they won't know why this happened or how to resolve it. Hence the extra info.

If the user was actually running a rebase command then, yes, they would/should be reasonably OK with the original error message telling them what was wrong with their command line. But a git pull? especially as the manual says nothing about preserve merges any more.

Quoted 9 lines

If we are to remove a capability the give up and die messages should be helpful in the edge cases. The issue (needing to check the pull, as well as the rebase configs) has already shown on the git-users list. It took a while to workout how it all happened.

Not sure if I've covered your concerns properly, but this is one of the places that can and warn the user.

I don't think that came out well. For this message, it's about reminding users that they may *also* be using the preserve option within their pull options, and not just within their rebase command's options.

Quoted 1 line

A case of "don't use it here, and don't use it there either, please check".

I see. What I was confused with (and still find confusing) is that the error here says "[and the pull.rebase=preserve config] may also invoke this option".

But it doesn't do that at all, it *used to*, but now "git pull" will promptly fail on it as well.

So this is really just trying to tell us something like this, right?

Hey, you invoked --preserve-merges, bad mojo! Also: if you invoke 'git pull' and used the related config you may or may not have used, that'll die too. So maybe check that out?

:)

Anyway, to the user the "invoke this option" isn't strictly accurate, but they probably don't care/know the difference, so I don't mind per-se, I was just wondering if I was missing something.

I do wonder if this part is needed at all. I.e. at this point this will only benefit users who are *manually* invoking "git rebase --preserve-merges", everyone else (including that "VS" example you mentioned) will go through "git pull" and see the other error.

IOW maybe just saying "this option is an error now" when we intercept the option is enough, and ditto for "this config is an error now" when we intercept the config, and not assume that a user using the option must also be using the config is simpler/sufficient.

Just my 0.02. For my part whahtever you decide to do here is fine by me, I was just wondering if I'd misundestood the whole flow around this legacy option and how we invoke the small parts of die() boilerplate left of it.

I'll have another look at the ways these edge cases could appear, and try an improve the commit message explanations where the diff doesn't show sufficient context. It'll be at least next week.

Hi Philip,

Quoted 3 lines · Philip Oakley

I'll have another look at the ways these edge cases could appear, and try an improve the commit message explanations where the diff doesn't show sufficient context. It'll be at least next week.

Can I punt this patch series back to you? (I sent it upstream on your behalf because I had assumed that you'd want me to, sorry for misunderstanding your intentions.)

Quoted 59 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 51 lines · Philip Oakley

Quoted 32 lines · Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

Quoted 9 lines · Philip Oakley via GitGitGadget

From: Philip Oakley <[email protected]>

Git will die if a "rebase --preserve-merges" is in progress. Users cannot --quit, --abort or --continue the rebase.

This sceario can occur if the user updates their Git, or switches to another newer version, after starting a preserve-merges rebase, commonly via the pull setting.

Quoted 8 lines

One trigger is an unexpectedly difficult to resolve conflict, as reported on the git-users group.
(https://groups.google.com/g/git-for-windows/c/3jMWbBlXXHM)

Tell the user the cause, i.e. the existence of the directory. The problem must be resolved manually, git rebase --<option> commands will die, or the user must downgrade. Also, note that the deleted options are no longer shown in the documentation.

I can go and read the linked thread for the answer, but:

builtin/rebase.c int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) · line 1189

Quoted 8 lines

builtin/rebase.c +3 -1

 		if (is_directory(buf.buf)) {
-			die("`rebase -p` is no longer supported");
+			die("`rebase --preserve-merges` (-p) is no longer supported.\n"
+			"You still have a `.git/rebase-merge/rewritten` directory, \n"
+			"indicating a `rebase preserve-merge` is still in progress.\n");
 		} else {
 			strbuf_reset(&buf);
 			strbuf_addf(&buf, "%s/interactive", merge_dir());

As much of an improvement this is, I'd be no closer to knowing what I should do at this point.

Quoted 10 lines

Should I "rm -rf" that directory, downgrade my version of git if I'd like to recover my work (as the message alludes to).

In either case I'd think that this is getting a bit past the length where we'd have just a die() v.s. splitting it into a die()/advise() pair. I.e. to have the advise() carry some bullet-point list about X/Y/Z solutions, with the die() being a brief ~"we did because xyz dir is still here".

Hi Ævar,

Exactly. This is a slightly special, but real, case. The previous message was essentially totally opaque to users. An "If I were you I wouldn't start from here" response is somewhat true, so we simply tell the user how they got to receive the fatal message. They can then take any of the options they choose.

Quoted 3 lines

Ultimately the user downgraded and managed to use "rebase --continue", as advised by Git, without the response "fatal:" to complete their old preserve-merges rebase.

Right. I'm pointing out that in this proposed version of the die() message we stop just short of actually telling the user how to proceed.

Quoted 3 lines

I.e. just that they have a X directory, not that they should either remove X and lose their work, or downgrade git, proceed, and then upgrade git.

In a sense, that is it. They are in a difficult place, but with at least a little information to seek further information and start making their choices. Before, they (users in difficulty) were rather uninformed.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 3 lines

They'll hit a similar fault in short order because when they next pull they'll be slipped into trying the preserve-merge rebase again - that's the 2/2 patch, making sure they know why.

Well, this is "rebase". You can have been running rebases in a repository without ever having any interactions with remotes.

True. That is a possibility. But we have also removed the preserve option for interaction with remotes as well.

Quoted 5 lines

And even if you had interactions with remotes you might be doing so via "git fetch" followed by "git rebase", and might not ever invoke "git pull".

Quoted 3 lines

And even if you did a "git pull" later shouldn't the error you got here be sufficiently stand-alone as to tell you what to do, without needing a later "pull"?

Why are we delaying telling the user that they would have problems there as well? It shouldn't be a game about how many ways we can trip up the user.

It's a pity the problem has split into the different ways into disaster.

Quoted 7 lines · Johannes Schindelin

Hi Philip,

Quoted 3 lines · Philip Oakley

I'll have another look at the ways these edge cases could appear, and try an improve the commit message explanations where the diff doesn't show sufficient context. It'll be at least next week.

Quoted 4 lines

Can I punt this patch series back to you? (I sent it upstream on your behalf because I had assumed that you'd want me to, sorry for misunderstanding your intentions.)

I'm happy to continue to work on this series, and am grateful for your support in pushing it through GGG. How is it best to transfer the 'ownership' at GGG?

I've still got some family issues so it'll be later in the week, or even next week before I can update the series.