From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seth Falcon Subject: Re: suggestion for git rebase -i Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:52:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Seth Falcon , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 28 17:52:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IEob4-0004YA-9J for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 17:52:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750856AbXG1Pwr (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:52:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750784AbXG1Pwr (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:52:47 -0400 Received: from MICA.FHCRC.ORG ([140.107.152.12]:36355 "EHLO mica.fhcrc.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774AbXG1Pwq (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:52:46 -0400 Received: from jade.fhcrc.org (JADE.FHCRC.ORG [140.107.42.223]) by mica.fhcrc.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l6SFqgYH028203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:52:43 -0700 Received: from ziti.fhcrc.org (DORMOUSE.FHCRC.ORG [140.107.170.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jade.fhcrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C708BE7E5; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:52:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sat\, 28 Jul 2007 09\:43\:15 +0100 \(BST\)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin) X-PMX-Version: 5.3.2.304607, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam-Data: 2007.7.28.83054 X-FHCRC-SCANNED: Sat Jul 28 08:52:43 2007 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Why? This is an implementation detail, and should not concern the > user. In the context of an existing editing session, the name of the tempfile is visible and relevant to the user (not just an implementation detail). For example, the tempfile name is useful when multi-tasking and one needs to get back to the buffer. As another reply pointed out, the name could also be used for editor mode customization. So. When editing a commit message, the buffer is named COMMIT_EDITMSG. When editing a rebase -i buffer it is named todo. Is this a real problem? Of course not. But I think a slightly more descriptive name makes sense -- especially if other commands gain interactive modes and a user might have a number of them going at once (in different repos, e.g.). + seth