Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] commit: add amend suboption to --fixup to create amend! commit

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

Hmm, I see. I didn't follow whatever discussion led to the decision to
use this sort of prefix matching, but I have to wonder if it is a good
idea.

Meaning --fixup=a:<commit> and --fixup=amend:<commit> do the same
thing, until somebody invents --fixup=another:<commit> and makes the
prefix 'a' no longer unique?  I tend to agree that, especially with
command line completion support with modern shells, such a prefix
matching would not be necessary. 

Was the idea that it behave similarly to sequencer commands in
`git rebase --interactive` which are often abbreviated to a single
letter? I personally would feel much more comfortable requiring a
full-word match for `amend` and `reword` at initial implementation.

Me too.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 06:28, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hmm, I see. I didn't follow whatever discussion led to the decision to
use this sort of prefix matching, but I have to wonder if it is a good
idea.

Meaning --fixup=a:<commit> and --fixup=amend:<commit> do the same
thing, until somebody invents --fixup=another:<commit> and makes the
prefix 'a' no longer unique?  I tend to agree that, especially with
command line completion support with modern shells, such a prefix
matching would not be necessary.

Okay, so for now I think (as suggested), let's remove it and directly
use "!strcmp()" only instead of "starts_with()". I agree that if we
keep prefix matching or not, it will not matter much.

Thanks and Regards,
Charvi