| Message ID | pull.1083.git.git.1630379030665.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | rebase, cherry-pick, revert: only run from toplevel | expand |
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:03 PM Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > Allowing rebase, cherry-pick and revert to run from subdirectories > inevitably leads to eventual user confusion. For example, if they > are within a directory that was created by one of the patches being > rebased, then the rebase operation could hit a conflict before the > directory is restored leading the user to be running from a directory > that no longer exists. Similarly with cherry-pick and revert, those > operations could result in the directory being removed. > > Similar to bisect, simply require that these commands be run from the > toplevel to avoid such problems. See also <xmqqv93n7q1v.fsf@gitster.g> and the rest of the thread.
Am 31.08.21 um 05:03 schrieb Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget: > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > Allowing rebase, cherry-pick and revert to run from subdirectories > inevitably leads to eventual user confusion. For example, if they > are within a directory that was created by one of the patches being > rebased, then the rebase operation could hit a conflict before the > directory is restored leading the user to be running from a directory > that no longer exists. Similarly with cherry-pick and revert, those > operations could result in the directory being removed. > > Similar to bisect, simply require that these commands be run from the > toplevel to avoid such problems. I am not a friend of this change. I understand the motivation behind it. But most of the time, rebase and cherry-pick are operated on own code, where directories do not disappear and appear at random, and this new enforced condition becomes awkward. One of my use-cases is that I operate git-rebase from an untracked build directory inside the repository. Having to pass -C .. all the time strikes the wrong balance, IMO. Things are slightly different for git-bisect (at least for me), because oftentimes it is operated on foreign code, where you may not know which directories come and go. But even that is a weak argument to force the command to the top-level of the repository. Perhaps it is sufficient to force git-pull to the top-level (if it isn't already). -- Hannes
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 03:03:50AM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > Allowing rebase, cherry-pick and revert to run from subdirectories > inevitably leads to eventual user confusion. For example, if they > are within a directory that was created by one of the patches being > rebased, then the rebase operation could hit a conflict before the > directory is restored leading the user to be running from a directory > that no longer exists. Similarly with cherry-pick and revert, those > operations could result in the directory being removed. > > Similar to bisect, simply require that these commands be run from the > toplevel to avoid such problems. IMHO this is too draconian. You are occasionally helping people who are in a directory which goes away over the course of the operation. But you are hurting everyone who _isn't_ in that situation, and who needlessly has to re-issue their command after doing a "cd". I think we'd be much better served to do even a rudimentary analysis of whether the operation will be a problem. E.g., if we taught the checkout code to error out when the cwd is going to disappear, then: - we'd protect the user from confusion during regular sight-seeing via "git checkout v0.99" and so forth - we'd protect the most common cases for git-rebase (your patches introduce "subdir/", but it is not yet in the parent directory). We wouldn't preemptively avoid a rebase where subdir/ disappears and then reappears in the middle of the series. We could find such a case by iterating over the patches, but IMHO it's not worth the computation. - we could likewise protect git-bisect, making it more reasonable to loosen its current restriction - we might want to teach similar logic to sequencer operations, so that applying a patch would likewise error-out. That would protect cherry-pick and revert, but also make the "subdir/ disappears mid-patch-series" case pretty nice: the specific patch that deletes it would fail to apply, and then you could "cd .. && git rebase --continue". I suspect that the "oops, we're going to delete cwd" code would end up in unpack-trees anyway, which means that both checkout and all of this sequencer operations would use the same code. Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd doesn't go away. -Peff
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:01 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 03:03:50AM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> > > > > Allowing rebase, cherry-pick and revert to run from subdirectories > > inevitably leads to eventual user confusion. For example, if they > > are within a directory that was created by one of the patches being > > rebased, then the rebase operation could hit a conflict before the > > directory is restored leading the user to be running from a directory > > that no longer exists. Similarly with cherry-pick and revert, those > > operations could result in the directory being removed. > > > > Similar to bisect, simply require that these commands be run from the > > toplevel to avoid such problems. > > IMHO this is too draconian. You are occasionally helping people who are > in a directory which goes away over the course of the operation. But you > are hurting everyone who _isn't_ in that situation, and who needlessly > has to re-issue their command after doing a "cd". > > I think we'd be much better served to do even a rudimentary analysis of > whether the operation will be a problem. E.g., if we taught the checkout > code to error out when the cwd is going to disappear, then: > > - we'd protect the user from confusion during regular sight-seeing via > "git checkout v0.99" and so forth > > - we'd protect the most common cases for git-rebase (your patches > introduce "subdir/", but it is not yet in the parent directory). We > wouldn't preemptively avoid a rebase where subdir/ disappears and > then reappears in the middle of the series. We could find such a > case by iterating over the patches, but IMHO it's not worth the > computation. > > - we could likewise protect git-bisect, making it more reasonable to > loosen its current restriction > > - we might want to teach similar logic to sequencer operations, so > that applying a patch would likewise error-out. That would protect > cherry-pick and revert, but also make the "subdir/ disappears > mid-patch-series" case pretty nice: the specific patch that deletes > it would fail to apply, and then you could "cd .. && git rebase > --continue". > > I suspect that the "oops, we're going to delete cwd" code would end > up in unpack-trees anyway, which means that both checkout and all of > this sequencer operations would use the same code. Well, sequencer uses the merge machinery, and merge-ort creates a toplevel merge tree that includes conflict markers in files and whatnot, and then only updates the working tree via checkout(). So, yeah, it really should be the same codepath. > Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may > turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a > much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where > they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), > without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd > doesn't go away. Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that are empty AND they are not the current working directory? Granted, that could leave a directory in the way of files from other revisions, but the same was already true in the analogous situation where there were leftover untracked files in some directory. Since all our code paths already have to handle directories leftover due to untracked files, perhaps avoiding removing the current working directory would just automatically work for us? (I think it'd handle all of checkout, bisect, rebase, cherry-pick, revert, and merge.)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:14:55PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may > > turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a > > much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where > > they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), > > without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd > > doesn't go away. > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? Hmm. My first thought after reading this is that it would cause surprising behavior for anybody who had 'git add --all' in their 'rebase -x' script. But would it? I.e., imagine somebody doing an in-place sed in a rebase and then `git add --all`-ing the result at each point in history. If the directory they were in ever went away, then the *next* revision would add that directory right back. That behavior seems somewhat surprising to me, or at least I could imagine it being surprising to users. Another thought is what should happen when the current directory goes away and then comes back as a file? We wouldn't be able to checkout that file, I don't think, so it might be a dead end. Thanks, Taylor
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:55 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:14:55PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may > > > turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a > > > much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where > > > they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), > > > without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd > > > doesn't go away. > > > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? > > Hmm. My first thought after reading this is that it would cause > surprising behavior for anybody who had 'git add --all' in their 'rebase > -x' script. But would it? > > I.e., imagine somebody doing an in-place sed in a rebase and then `git > add --all`-ing the result at each point in history. If the directory > they were in ever went away, then the *next* revision would add that > directory right back. > > That behavior seems somewhat surprising to me, or at least I could > imagine it being surprising to users. I'm not following. `git add --all` doesn't add empty directories, so I don't see how my proposed change would cause any problems in such a case; nothing would be added back. > Another thought is what should happen when the current directory goes > away and then comes back as a file? We wouldn't be able to checkout that > file, I don't think, so it might be a dead end. I'm not following this either. Peff's original suggestion was to error out only when we knew it could cause problems, in particular when the working directory would be removed. Here I've shifted the way the problem is viewed by just not removing the working directory, but the end result is the same -- it errors out when the removal was needed. Given that erroring out is exactly what we wanted for a case like this, why does that make it a dead end?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 09:43:15PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:55 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:14:55PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may > > > > turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a > > > > much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where > > > > they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), > > > > without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd > > > > doesn't go away. > > > > > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > > > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > > > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > > > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > > > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > > > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? > > > > Hmm. My first thought after reading this is that it would cause > > surprising behavior for anybody who had 'git add --all' in their 'rebase > > -x' script. But would it? > > > > I.e., imagine somebody doing an in-place sed in a rebase and then `git > > add --all`-ing the result at each point in history. If the directory > > they were in ever went away, then the *next* revision would add that > > directory right back. > > > > That behavior seems somewhat surprising to me, or at least I could > > imagine it being surprising to users. > > I'm not following. `git add --all` doesn't add empty directories, so > I don't see how my proposed change would cause any problems in such a > case; nothing would be added back. Ahh, it was I who wasn't following. You were proposing to leave the directories in place but empty. Agreed that there wouldn't be any problems with that. > > Another thought is what should happen when the current directory goes > > away and then comes back as a file? We wouldn't be able to checkout that > > file, I don't think, so it might be a dead end. > > I'm not following this either. Peff's original suggestion was to > error out only when we knew it could cause problems, in particular > when the working directory would be removed. Here I've shifted the > way the problem is viewed by just not removing the working directory, > but the end result is the same -- it errors out when the removal was > needed. Given that erroring out is exactly what we wanted for a case > like this, why does that make it a dead end? The way you shifted the problem makes it possible for us to discover that only right before we're about to fail, right? In other words, if you're doing a rebase then you're potentially leaving a lot of wasted work on the table if you realize halfway through the operation that you couldn't complete it. Even though I think that's *not* what you want for rebase, it ironically *is* what you might want for bisect, since the path we'll take isn't known ahead of time. So even if there are some paths that would result in a directory -> file conversion in the cwd, we don't need to fail the operation ahead of time if the bisection doesn't actually take that path. On the other hand, it does still leave a lot of work on the table if the bisection does eventually want to change the current working directory into a file, depending on where that change happens. Maybe those cases are pretty niche in practice. I have to imagine that they are. If my guess is right, then I think your approach makes sense. Thanks, Taylor
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes: > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand is trying to checkout?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:29 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes: > > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? > > Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the > subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is > not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand > is trying to checkout? The same problem (an untracked directory is in the way) already exists and has to be handled by all relevant subcommands, right? In particular, if the current working directory only has untracked files in it, then the directory cannot be removed. That will prevent us from checking out the revision we want, so we have to throw an error. So my idea just piggy backs on that, resulting in the same error also being shown when the current working directory has 0 untracked files within it. Since the whole thread started from, "maybe we should throw an error instead of continuing if it would result in the current working directory getting deleted", I believe this idea does exactly what we were looking for...and nicely tailors the new error cases to precisely the situations we wanted them for -- when the current working directory would have been removed by the old code.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:08:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:29 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > > > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > > > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > > > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > > > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > > > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? > > > > Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the > > subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is > > not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand > > is trying to checkout? > > The same problem (an untracked directory is in the way) already exists > and has to be handled by all relevant subcommands, right? > > In particular, if the current working directory only has untracked > files in it, then the directory cannot be removed. That will prevent > us from checking out the revision we want, so we have to throw an > error. > > So my idea just piggy backs on that, resulting in the same error also > being shown when the current working directory has 0 untracked files > within it. > > Since the whole thread started from, "maybe we should throw an error > instead of continuing if it would result in the current working > directory getting deleted", I believe this idea does exactly what we > were looking for...and nicely tailors the new error cases to precisely > the situations we wanted them for -- when the current working > directory would have been removed by the old code. Yeah, this is definitely what I had in mind for my original suggestion: extending the "do not delete directory if it contains an untracked file" rule to the cwd. I guess I was thinking of it as an error, but it really _isn't_ an error in most cases, as long as we don't need to recreate another entry there (and if we do, then as you say, the existing error paths should handle it). It does leave crufty directories behind in the working tree that Git would not then delete (because it only cleans up directories after it removes their contents, and there are no contents left to remove). That's probably not a big deal, though. If you are moving around history with things like rebase or bisect, you'd likely move back to a working tree with the directory anyway. And it's not like you can't end up with such directories through other means (and "git clean -d" takes care of them). So I do like the approach. -Peff PS I'm assuming this is all taking the cwd of the process based on the original "prefix" (since Git processes generally move up to the top-level of the working tree). But that still leaves the problem for _other_ processes. E.g., if I am working in two terminals, one could be in "subdir/" and I could issue a bisect or rebase command from the other at the top-level, which would put one of them into the confusing state. You could strengthen the rule to "is _any_ process using this as a cwd", but it's hard to do so portably. And I know I've been annoyed by similar such safety valves before ("why can't I delete this? Argh, some process I don't care about is squatting on it").
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:59 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 09:43:15PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:55 PM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:14:55PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > > Now I have spent zero time looking into actually coding this, so it may > > > > > turn out to be much trickier than I am suggesting. But this seems like a > > > > > much more fruitful direction, where we can protect users in cases where > > > > > they benefit (and give them sensible and actionable error messages), > > > > > without bothering people in the majority of cases where their cwd > > > > > doesn't go away. > > > > > > > > Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule > > > > slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently, > > > > the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or > > > > untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we > > > > decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that > > > > are empty AND they are not the current working directory? > > > > > > Hmm. My first thought after reading this is that it would cause > > > surprising behavior for anybody who had 'git add --all' in their 'rebase > > > -x' script. But would it? > > > > > > I.e., imagine somebody doing an in-place sed in a rebase and then `git > > > add --all`-ing the result at each point in history. If the directory > > > they were in ever went away, then the *next* revision would add that > > > directory right back. > > > > > > That behavior seems somewhat surprising to me, or at least I could > > > imagine it being surprising to users. > > > > I'm not following. `git add --all` doesn't add empty directories, so > > I don't see how my proposed change would cause any problems in such a > > case; nothing would be added back. > > Ahh, it was I who wasn't following. You were proposing to leave the > directories in place but empty. Agreed that there wouldn't be any > problems with that. > > > > Another thought is what should happen when the current directory goes > > > away and then comes back as a file? We wouldn't be able to checkout that > > > file, I don't think, so it might be a dead end. > > > > I'm not following this either. Peff's original suggestion was to > > error out only when we knew it could cause problems, in particular > > when the working directory would be removed. Here I've shifted the > > way the problem is viewed by just not removing the working directory, > > but the end result is the same -- it errors out when the removal was > > needed. Given that erroring out is exactly what we wanted for a case > > like this, why does that make it a dead end? > > The way you shifted the problem makes it possible for us to discover > that only right before we're about to fail, right? In other words, if > you're doing a rebase then you're potentially leaving a lot of wasted > work on the table if you realize halfway through the operation that you > couldn't complete it. Sure, it shifts things towards failing later. However, for correctness reasons, merge-ort has already fundamentally shifted everything working-directory related towards failing later. merge-recursive (the old algorithm), via unpack-trees, tried to do checks for "locally modified files in the way" and "untracked files/directories in the way" early on in the process. However, such checks were unaware of rename detection logic and thus had both false positives and false negatives in terms of throwing errors and saying the merge could not proceed. Those false positives and negatives were intrinsic to the design of merge-recursive; they'll never be fixed. The only correct fix is to fundamentally change the design -- do the entire merge operation without touching the working tree or index, and only after you have a new resulting merge tree, then do a checkout operation to switch from the old tree to the new merge result tree; only at that final checkout step do you fail if there are locally modified files or untracked files/directories in the way. That's what merge-ort does. merge-ort is also written to allow a whole rebase to be done "in-memory" and only update the working tree and index after we have the final end-tree. test-tool fast-rebase already works this way. In such a case, we'd only notice an untracked directory being in the way at the point we hit a conflict or when we got to the end of the rebase. So again, erroring out when there is a directory with >= 1 untracked files (and at the end of the operation) isn't a new issue at all. The only thing that is new is we'd also error out if a directory had 0 untracked files in it. However, I disagree with the "a lot of wasted work"; rebase is hundreds or thousands of times faster than it used to be as you highlighted in your blog post. ;-) Also, as per my --remerge-diff thread, merge-ort can remerge 33.5 merge commits/second in linux.git. And that's just merges; rebases are faster than merges because (a) the intersection (rather than union) of changes on both sides of history tends to be much smaller for rebases than merges, due to the fact that individual commits tend to only modify a handful of files (and merge-ort optimizations work very well when the intersection of files changed on both sides is small), and (b) we can cache rename detection results for the upstream side of history in rebases. > Even though I think that's *not* what you want for rebase, it ironically I think it's totally what we want for rebase; it's perfectly aligned with the merge-ort correctness changes to move things to fail-at-the-end for working-directory-related problems. > *is* what you might want for bisect, since the path we'll take isn't > known ahead of time. So even if there are some paths that would result > in a directory -> file conversion in the cwd, we don't need to fail the > operation ahead of time if the bisection doesn't actually take that > path. > > On the other hand, it does still leave a lot of work on the table if the > bisection does eventually want to change the current working directory > into a file, depending on where that change happens. > > Maybe those cases are pretty niche in practice. I have to imagine that > they are. If my guess is right, then I think your approach makes sense. :-)
diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c index c284a7ace19..7100f0627f6 100644 --- a/builtin/rebase.c +++ b/builtin/rebase.c @@ -1430,6 +1430,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) usage_with_options(builtin_rebase_usage, builtin_rebase_options); + if (prefix) + die(_("You need to run this command from the toplevel of the working tree.")); + options.allow_empty_message = 1; git_config(rebase_config, &options); /* options.gpg_sign_opt will be either "-S" or NULL */ diff --git a/builtin/revert.c b/builtin/revert.c index 237f2f18d4c..9a150dcbdaf 100644 --- a/builtin/revert.c +++ b/builtin/revert.c @@ -230,6 +230,9 @@ int cmd_revert(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) struct replay_opts opts = REPLAY_OPTS_INIT; int res; + if (prefix) + die(_("You need to run this command from the toplevel of the working tree.")); + opts.action = REPLAY_REVERT; sequencer_init_config(&opts); res = run_sequencer(argc, argv, &opts); @@ -243,6 +246,9 @@ int cmd_cherry_pick(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) struct replay_opts opts = REPLAY_OPTS_INIT; int res; + if (prefix) + die(_("You need to run this command from the toplevel of the working tree.")); + opts.action = REPLAY_PICK; sequencer_init_config(&opts); res = run_sequencer(argc, argv, &opts); diff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh index 66bcbbf9528..dd1afb97fca 100755 --- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh +++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh @@ -112,28 +112,6 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase -i with the exec command' ' rm -f touch-* ' -test_expect_success 'rebase -i with the exec command runs from tree root' ' - git checkout primary && - mkdir subdir && (cd subdir && - set_fake_editor && - FAKE_LINES="1 exec_>touch-subdir" \ - git rebase -i HEAD^ - ) && - test_path_is_file touch-subdir && - rm -fr subdir -' - -test_expect_success 'rebase -i with exec allows git commands in subdirs' ' - test_when_finished "rm -rf subdir" && - test_when_finished "git rebase --abort ||:" && - git checkout primary && - mkdir subdir && (cd subdir && - set_fake_editor && - FAKE_LINES="1 x_cd_subdir_&&_git_rev-parse_--is-inside-work-tree" \ - git rebase -i HEAD^ - ) -' - test_expect_success 'rebase -i sets work tree properly' ' test_when_finished "rm -rf subdir" && test_when_finished "test_might_fail git rebase --abort" &&