From: "Robert Dailey" <rcdailey.li...@gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
Perhaps a change like this to "rebase -i":
- The search for "original" when handling "pick fixup! original",
when it does not find "original", could turn it into "reword
fixup! original" without changing its position in the instruction
So this is mostly for my education, since I don't see a difference
from a user-standpoint.
This was a problem in the past.
Why would "fixup! fixup! original" look for
"original" instead of "fixup! original"? As far as I can see, the
behavior would be the same and the order would be retained since you
are essentially "chaining" the fixups together this way.
The patch that introduced the effect is 22c5b13 (rebase -i: handle fixup!
fixup! in --autosquash, 2013-06-27). At the time it was possible that the
commits would be re-ordered based on the full multi-fixup message, and so,
if you thought you'd corrected a poor fixup, rather correcting the original,
the conceptual order would change. While the combined diffs still notionally
add to the same effect, the changes to the context lines may mean they don't
apply cleanly - keeping them in order makes for a clean application. The
solution was to ignore multiple fixup!s at the start.
gives you the behavior you want directly because the algorithm will
naturally tie to "fixup! original" even if "original" doesn't exist,
because Git would expect that "fixup! original" will automatically
manage its own order, and that subsequent processed nested "fixup!"
commits would not need to depend on any other commits.
There is a question as to whether the commit you pushed upstream, is classed
as 'published' and immutable, or still part of the review and modification
process. At the moment the presumption, in general, is that it would be the
former, so that you can't fixup the original. I don't see that changing,
however Junio's suggestion that these extra fixups are 'reworded' so that
they will rebase (--autosquash) locally to become one commit titled
something like "fix! original", and then a final rebase that rewords that
commit back to "fixup! " for pushing upstream to the 'review' process, where
they can request that it be 'fixed';-)