From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
Philip Oakley <philipoak...@iee.org> writes:
22c5b13 (rebase -i: handle fixup! fixup! in --autosquash, 2013-06-27)
That's a noun that names a commit object. What about it?
It's the commit that introduced the original change that's being clarified.
Is a paragraph needed or simply "Ref commit: .."
I certainly misunderstood what this meant. It sounded like only one
allowed per commit (i.e. one mistake) - fixing two mistakes wouldn't be
allowed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I think this is about
Yes, but the original wording didn't make me think that.
git commit -m foo
... some other commits
git commit -m 'fixup! foo'
... even more other commits
git commit -m 'fixup! fixup! foo'
The last one is technically a fixup of the second one, but as long
as the second one is to be applied _and_ the last one comes after
the second one, we could say that both of them are fix-ups for the
very first one. And that is what the original text says.
No. To me it said "You can only have one fixup (commit) for any given
commit". So that's one original, and one fixup. After that the autosquash
would leave the remaining fixup commits in their original positions in the
commit sequence. Hence the patch.
I have a feeling that if the editor session to edit the todo drops
the second one and leaves this:
fixup fixup! fixup! foo
the command _should_ notice that the second one that is required to
apply the last one is gone and error out, but probably the code does
not do so, and if that is the case, I think "they fix the very first
commit that invited these fixups" is a more reasonable description
than the more technically stringent "fixup! fixup! is to fix what
the fixup! did", which is not what the code implements.
Also, does 'earliest commit requiring fixup/squash' fully convey that
its the one to fix.
I cannot tell if that a question or a statement?
It's a question. In your prior para you offer "they fix the very first
It's when a users mental model is that they got their first fixup wrong and
it's that fixup they are correcting, and later they add different fixups to
the orignal that it all gets hairy.
(diffs must have the right sequence, while snapshots don't care - so if we
keep the diff sequence, we don't care about the user's mental model as the
end results are the same).
commit that invited these fixups" as an alternate.
The writeup needs to cope with the mental model rather than the end result.
It maybe that the whole 'fixup/squash' capability should be brought out as a
small separate section to give space to these points and the user
Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 66b789a..91eb107 100644
@@ -425,9 +425,9 @@ without an explicit `--interactive`.
automatically modify the todo list of rebase -i
so that the commit marked for squashing comes right after the
commit to be modified, and change the action of the moved
- commit from `pick` to `squash` (or `fixup`). Ignores subsequent
- "fixup! " or "squash! " after the first, in case you referred to an
- earlier fixup/squash with `git commit --fixup/--squash`.
+ commit from `pick` to `squash` (or `fixup`). Commits with repeated
+ "fixup! " or "squash! " in the subject line are considered to refer
+ to the earliest commit requiring fixup/squash.
This option is only valid when the '--interactive' option is used.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html