Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] Teach rebase interactive the mark command

Hi,

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The idea I hinted at was to refer to them by another name than the short 
name.  Then we can use the sequencer machinery.

I still maintain that it is such a rare need (even if you are a power user 
of it) that it makes sense to cater for other, simpler uses.

As usual, I am greedy and I would want to have both supported in such a
way that (1) simple things are simple and (2) the language is expressive
enough that complex things are possible.

Agreed.

And I try to stress that while we are still in the drawing board phase, 
because it would be painful to change once we start with a language 
without enough expressiveness.

Unfortunately, we are no longer in the drawing board phase, because the 
offending code is already in 'next'.

And that was where my "Can the approach to use the original commit ID to 
stand for rewritten one express everything we would want to do in the 
future, not just limited to 'rebase -i -p'" series of questions came 
from.

I maintain that it can.  Because you can _still_ refer to the original 
commit name quite easily: just take one more letter.

In the meantime I thought about the "<commit name>'" approach (note the 
single apostrophe at the end), though, and it seems that this would not 
be too involved.

But hey, the code is so ugly and complicated by now, that I avert my eyes 
to other tasks.

Ciao,
Dscho