Re: A couple of rebase --autosquash proposals

This aims to support code-review workflows of teams that prefer rebase
over merge, when committing a new peer-reviewed feature.

* Developer starts with commit OM, commits A.
* During testing, the developer may make further changes, either
through --amend or new commits, but either way, all work is rebased to
a single new commit for review, OM -> A' .
* A' is pushed as a new branch to origin for team review.  The review
system facilitates the review of the change, and review comments are
made.
* The developer responds to the review comments by making changes in
commits B and C, and pushes OM -> A' -> B -> C.  Reviewers can
understand the feedback that has been addressed in the changes with
through the commit-log in B and C.
* Code passes review.  Because the team prefers rebased commits, A'..C
is rebased onto the current OM (which may now be OM+10) and committed.

If the commit-log entries for B and C allow simultaneous
fixup!/squash! syntax together with and free-text log-text, they can
serve both purposes: 1) they communicate that the change is a
feedback-generated fix (rather than a new feature), and describe which
parts of the feedback each commit addresses, and 2) they pre-empt and
support the eventual rebase-before-origin-push, through --autosquash
annotation.

Brett

On 9 December 2013 20:26, Chris Packham [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/12/13 19:51, Johannes Sixt wrote:

quoted

Am 12/9/2013 3:23, schrieb Brett Randall:

quoted

* fixup! or squash! on it's own would default to fixing-up the
previous commit (or result of previous step of rebase if that was a
squash/fixup).

Why would you want that? To fixup the previous commit, just use 'git
commit --amend'. What am I missing?

In the past I've used this kind of approach when doing merging/porting
work with 3rd party code (or just large integrations). The first (and
eventually final) commit introduces the new code. The subsequent fixups
address build issues which are either errors in the 3rd party code
(which I will want to submit bug reports for later and carry in my tree
as real commits) or errors in my merging (which I want to squash into
the merge commit). When faced with a screen full of compilation errors
I'm not sure which of these 2 categories are applicable at the time so I
tend to have lots of little fixups that I need to juggle around with git
rebase once I've got the code compiling and passing some tests.

All that being said I think allowing multiple "fixup!\n" stack up on
each other might be a bit dangerous. There are cases where
fixup!-fixup!-real might be useful but those would be hard to
distinguish those from cases where someone absent mindedly forgot to put
something after "fixup!".