From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28706347D3 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 23:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="rEB6sgx6" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF851A6 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822671C21EF; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 19:34:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=JWjD3vYy+CwpeJOhPhWWc1WvrA4XZ+Bhllq2d1 5U1fw=; b=rEB6sgx65JpHguvTdf1gidhWKYYPebxvwa5Km3ciJ8i9grNWcCMBox a26WfqCxEudBm0sp3hTEVmBvdtibi+dqKt22rFaXtyU9Hyp1oQ3f9bLcpzCNHqnM CaKilLqzbkWZpU7Ao89GqxCyGW9XnLFtk5LlfDtLkidfDY7Bceiv0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DAA1C21EE; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 19:34:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.198.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB3651C21ED; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 19:34:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Marc Branchaud Cc: Oswald Buddenhagen , git@vger.kernel.org, Phillip Wood , Taylor Blau , Christian Couder , Charvi Mendiratta Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-rebase.txt: rewrite docu for fixup/squash (again) In-Reply-To: <56e3e974-a027-439f-871d-c7fbae65a04e@xiplink.com> (Marc Branchaud's message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:14:42 -0400") References: <20231023130016.1093356-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <20231025102932.1202299-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de> <56e3e974-a027-439f-871d-c7fbae65a04e@xiplink.com> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 08:34:24 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5D90086A-7521-11EE-ACB5-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Marc Branchaud writes: > I do not think this kind of editorializing belongs in the commit's > message, but this likely isn't the first commit message that expresses > an opinion. Thanks for saying this. > I like the overall phrasing here. > > But I think you should remove the "but this should not be relied upon" > phrase. This reads as if Git's current behaviour is undefined, which > most definitely is not true. > > Even changing this to something like "but this might change in the > future" is unhelpful. Everything in Git is subject to change over a > long-enough time span, so the same could be said about every aspect of > Git. > > Until the behaviour actually changes, it's perfectly fine for people > to use multiple "fixup -c" commands. There's no reason to scare them > off of it. And that would simplify the description to make it easier to follow by readers who are *not* involved in the development process. > >> +If the resulting commit message is a concatenation of multiple messages, >> +an editor is opened allowing you to edit it. This is also the case for a >> +message obtained via "fixup -c", while using "fixup -C" instead skips >> +the editor; this is analogous to the behavior of `git commit`. >> +The author information (including date/timestamp) always comes from >> +the first commit; this is the case even if "fixup -c/-C" is used, >> +contrary to what `git commit` does. > > This phrasing is much better. > > Thanks for putting up with my pedantry! Thanks for a good review. I guess the patch is very near the finish line?