From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Note the use of "rebase -i" to squash consecutive commits into one. Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:32:53 -0700 Message-ID: <7vtzdhisre.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1219012340-23376-1-git-send-email-offby1@blarg.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Hanchrow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 19 05:34:05 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KVHyv-00049o-1c for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:34:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752604AbYHSDdA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:33:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752579AbYHSDdA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:33:00 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:41940 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752159AbYHSDc7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:32:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A721581A9; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07A38581A8; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:32:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1219012340-23376-1-git-send-email-offby1@blarg.net> (Eric Hanchrow's message of "Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:32:20 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 84CC7B1A-6D9F-11DD-98F2-B29498D589B0-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: This is missing sign-off. More importantly, I do not think adding an extra illustration that starts talking about an example history that is _different_ from what was being discussed is a good idea. The end result lacks coherence and forces the reader to reset his mind for each example. I'd suggest you to rewrite the example part that begins a few lines before you touched. Present the example "original" history with illustration first (and call it A---B---C---D---E---F---G, not QRSTU), and clarify the existing example of reordering the last 5 commits, and show the history after such reordering. Then you talk about squashing, with before-and-after illustrations, but base that illustration on the same example history. That way, the reader has to understand the original scene only once to grok both examples.