Re: squashing patches

Stephan Beyer [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

Comments? Opinions? Ideas?

I actually expected that the primitive command sequence the backward
compatible "edit" would expand to would be a pair, "pick" followed by
"pause".

Something "like" this was my veeeery first approach: "edit" with commit
was the backwards-compatible "edit" and without arguments was your
"pause".
Example:
	pick ea7beef
	edit		# or "pause" as you suggested
After a little discussion this became:
	pick --edit ea7beef

And I can't objectively say what's better

Me neither.  My "expectation" came primarily from what I understood,
namely you seemt to prefer atomism, and not from "I want things to be this
way".

If we think any proposed and future instruction would be reasonable to
have --edit option, then all insn implementation would need to support
"edit" option anyway, and the users do not have to remember which insn
does and does not support --edit so both forms would work equally well
(and "--edit option" would make the insn stream shorter, which may be
good).  But probably "mark --edit" and "reset --edit" would not make
sense, so a separate "edit" insn may be more generic and useful.

The open question is, if we should do this by a natural number <n> or
by a commit.
The natural number approach seems easier, but imagine someone pauses
and does some commits (not --amend)... Here the behavior of these
approaches differs. ;-)

I see.  Not using count but setting an explicit mark and using that commit
sounds more robust, considering that use case.

quoted

About the other parts in your original message:

 - The "tag" command looked a little out of place;

Eh, why?

Why not?

I just wondered why there was a support only for lightweight tag there.
You do not have "branch" command, and your "tag" command does not seem to
support things like -a, -s, -m<msg>, etc.  Not that I think you should
support full "tag" and "branch" command set, but it seemed a bit odd.