From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase -i: fixup fixup! fixup! Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:07:58 +0200 Message-ID: <8738shi2ht.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> References: <20130611180530.GA18488@oinkpad.pimlott.net> <87obbc8otc.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net> <1371237209-sup-639@pimlott.net> <1371278908-sup-1930@pimlott.net> <7vk3lvlmat.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87ip1e2tzx.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net> <7v7ghtjwbb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Andrew Pimlott , git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 17 10:08:11 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UoUTy-0007KR-Fg for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:08:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932305Ab3FQIID (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:08:03 -0400 Received: from edge20.ethz.ch ([82.130.99.26]:34242 "EHLO edge20.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932304Ab3FQIIA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:08:00 -0400 Received: from CAS10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) by edge20.ethz.ch (82.130.99.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:07:54 +0200 Received: from linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by cas10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:07:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7v7ghtjwbb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:38:32 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> Isn't it a bit of an academic question? >> ... >> And once you have that, it seems a nicer and cleaner idea to generate >> 'fixup! A' each time, instead of a successive sequence of >> >> fixup! A >> fixup! fixup! A >> fixup! fixup! fixup! A >> ... > > As to reordering, you are absolutely correct. [...] > Does dropping these leading "fixup!" (or "squash!") at commit time > make the application in "rebase -i --autosquash" significantly > easier to do? Conveniently enough we have seen both already ;-) Andrew's version for commit.c could use a bit of refactorization, since it inserts the same code in two places, but then it's about the same complexity as the change for rebase. I'm not sure it's worth arguing about whether the "fixup! fixup!" is a symptom of some underlying problem, and changing rebase is only tapering over the symptom; or whether it's actually a useful distinction. Either one works fine as a fix for an annoyance that Andrew had, and that bit me in the past too. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch