Re: [RESEND] git-rebase.txt: rewrite docu for fixup/squash (again)

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 05:40:01PM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>I think the original text's "those identified by" is a bit vague: Does 
>"those" mean "messages" or "commits"?  The sentence reads like "those" 
>stands for "messages", but then of course you don't identify *messages* 
>with "squash" commands.
>
fair enough, though the repetition makes it linguistically inferior.

>Maybe emphasize the word "only" in the sentence (i.e. spell it as 
>'only'). 
>
that seems excessive to me. i'm not assuming that my readers are dumb.

> To really drive the point home it could say something like
>	obtained 'only' from the "fixup -c" commit, dropping the
>	messages of all the other involved commits
>
as above.

also, i'm actually uneasy about including the exact behavior in the 
first place, as it codifies something questionable - a better response 
from git would be complaining about it. i will drop it.

>> (having more than one "fixup -c" commit
>> +makes no sense, and only the message from the last one is used).
>
>"Makes no sense" seems a bit opinionated (although I agree with the 
>sentiment).
>
i'm not terribly worried about readers who have an aversion towards 
being told facts ...
anyway, i will use "is incorrect" instead, as it seems more to the 
point.

>Also, you can legitimately have more than one "fixup -c" in the overall 
>instruction set, as long as there's at least one "pick" command in 
>between, e.g.
>
yes, but the context is a single fixup sequence. the above comments 
about readers and repetition apply here, too.

>[1] Makes me wonder if rebase should also support "squash -c"...
>
the distinction is that "squash" combines the messages, while "fixup" 
discards them, and the -c merely changes what is discarded. softening 
that up seems counter-productive to me.

thanks