Charvi Mendiratta [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
The reason I brought it up was not because "--fixup=reword" is not
needed as a short-hand for "--only --fixup=amend" (but thinking
about it again, I do not think it is so bad), but primarily in
response to "would it be easier for users if we had reword! insn in
addition to amend! verb in the todo file?" that was raised earlier
in the thread. If we position "--fixup=reword" as a short-hand
and/or a syntax sugar for "--fixup=amend" and advertise it as such
sufficiently to educate users, it would be easier for users to
understand why they both result in "amend!".
Okay, so now if it's Ok to keep the short-hand "--fixup=reword" ? then
I think making the documentation more clear would be sufficient to
serve it to the users ?
It would be good
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" but not introduce "reword!" insn
(3) document "--fixup=reword:<commit>" can be thought of as a mere
special-case short-hand for "--fixup=amend:<commit> --only",
and
(4) make sure "fixup=amend:<commit> --only" is usable as a
replacement for "--fixup=reword:<commit>".
but if we are not doing (3) and (4), then it would also be OK to
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" and introduce "reword!" insn
I would think.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 23:55, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Charvi Mendiratta [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
The reason I brought it up was not because "--fixup=reword" is not
needed as a short-hand for "--only --fixup=amend" (but thinking
about it again, I do not think it is so bad), but primarily in
response to "would it be easier for users if we had reword! insn in
addition to amend! verb in the todo file?" that was raised earlier
in the thread. If we position "--fixup=reword" as a short-hand
and/or a syntax sugar for "--fixup=amend" and advertise it as such
sufficiently to educate users, it would be easier for users to
understand why they both result in "amend!".
Okay, so now if it's Ok to keep the short-hand "--fixup=reword" ? then
I think making the documentation more clear would be sufficient to
serve it to the users ?
It would be good
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" but not introduce "reword!" insn
(3) document "--fixup=reword:<commit>" can be thought of as a mere
special-case short-hand for "--fixup=amend:<commit> --only",
and
(4) make sure "fixup=amend:<commit> --only" is usable as a
replacement for "--fixup=reword:<commit>".
Okay, I agree that this method is more clear ...
but if we are not doing (3) and (4), then it would also be OK to
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" and introduce "reword!" insn
... than this one and will update the patch in the above (former) suggested way.
Thanks for suggestions and detailed explanation.
Thanks and Regards,
Charvi
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:13 PM Charvi Mendiratta [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 23:55, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" but not introduce "reword!" insn
(3) document "--fixup=reword:<commit>" can be thought of as a mere
special-case short-hand for "--fixup=amend:<commit> --only",
and
(4) make sure "fixup=amend:<commit> --only" is usable as a
replacement for "--fixup=reword:<commit>".
Okay, I agree that this method is more clear ...
This works for me too, especially the bit about improving the
documentation to be more clear that --fixup=reword: is a special-case
(or syntactic sugar) for --fixup=amend:.
My confusion all along was thinking that --fixup=amend: and
--fixup=reword: resulted in distinct "amend!" and "reword!" prefixes.
I don't know whether that confusion was due to me not reading the
commit messages or documentation carefully enough, or because the
behavior wasn't clearly documented or easily understood. (I did have
to re-read the documentation patch multiple times in an attempt to
understand what it was saying, so perhaps I can blame that. ;-) At any
rate, it will be good if we can get it clearly documented.
quoted
but if we are not doing (3) and (4), then it would also be OK to
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" and introduce "reword!" insn
... than this one and will update the patch in the above (former) suggested way.
This option would likely be less desirable since it could confuse
people into thinking that "reword!" would become "reword" in the
sequencer instruction sheet -- which isn't the case at all -- it
becomes "fixup -c" (or -C, I can't remember).