From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D9EC4363D for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E472395C for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:58:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="btiTeb+/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727058AbgIXQ6b (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:58:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57714 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726458AbgIXQ6b (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:58:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C29491ED4; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:58:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=T3uZYVLgmdR8Hms0OSHSPUqQ5vM=; b=btiTeb +/l6ZDzYhFLt8rk6L4fCpq/G48wx7BJZA7xcnTJDqtIlJEpl+pz+BNIredFctHyH 3K+8ORb73nuAfj/l9NdKQ9+09qgWGvdjgqNfhC9UtYbXkCPdDCVEAUuvLmI89fRf uivAQbLwTkPIT4X+73Axu61QB6PplsCnWhoI0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=vIfClCocfhgyHoli+v7du2N2Ttb3hgDi Jekcdk2a6tWl4uEoNhNKV0L9YJVhaXl6USTCuuiVEPBuumEyBh4eXf50vaw51Tgd Ix3Y2vfWY9//1VJCepEvdE9iCNXTmKNcVHhoEDE/8tbOvunjDIrW0/stHQSdSHJM kaRg2nGnnxo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536EC91ED3; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:58:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1FF191ED2; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:58:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] commit: add an option the reword HEAD References: <7f851e7c20aafdae5d5ae46ee1083b32ecc82c84.1600695050.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <41dcb8cb-8e43-04ce-2ddd-d69c765ee327@gmail.com> <95cc6fb2-d1bc-11de-febe-c2b5c78a6850@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:58:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <95cc6fb2-d1bc-11de-febe-c2b5c78a6850@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:58:54 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2B4D7B80-FE87-11EA-A813-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Phillip Wood writes: >>> I don't think this patch series stops us implementing something for rebase but >>> it would mean we couldn't use the name reword! unless we allow `git commit >>> --reword` to take an optional commit which I'm not that keen on. >>> >>> What do you think to an alternative name? >> I am really worried that the proliferation of confusingly similar >> options >> will increase Git's reputation for being awfully hard to use. > ... > The reason I'm not keen on having --amend or --reword take an optional > commit is that I think it is confusing as it means sometimes that > option creates a new commit and sometimes it modifies the last commit > furthermore passing --reword=HEAD would not reword HEAD but creates a > reword! commit. Adding just another subjective view to the two already presented, but I think --reword, as presented by Phillip, sits better next to the existing --amend. I wonder if we can extend the existing "--fixup " (and perhaps "--squash ") to make them work better with the workflow Dscho envisions? Explicit presence of the "-e" option might be a way to tell the command to behave differently from the current "--fixup" and to leave a mark that is different from 'fixup!" in the resulting commit to affect the later "rebase" step as well, for example.