On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: >> these (or any other command prefixes in commit messages). Given that >> the --anonymize option is explicitly designed to help reproducing >> bugs, I consider this to be a bug in the --anonymize option itself. > > Yes, it probably should handle those prefixes. > > I don't know if I'd call it a bug. Maybe a missing feature. :)
I'd usually agree, but in this case, as I mentioned above, I consider the missing feature to be so essential that the oversight to implement it is actually a bug :-) > So this seems like a good example of that. I think I'd prefer to see us > add in known prefixes like "fixup!" and "squash!" then try to guess what > other prefixes might be OK. I don't know of any other command prefixes > besides those two, so maybe that's all you were suggesting. Those were also the only two that came to my mind, but I wanted to give some one who has a better overview the change to amend that list. > It shouldn't be too hard to add. You'd probably need to make two > adjustments to anonymize_commit_message(): > > 1. Teach it to store the mapping of anonymized messages, using > anonymize_mem(). > > 2. Parse "fixup! <msg>" and just anonymize_mem() the second half. I > think technically this wouldn't handle a fixup-of-fixup, but I > don't think rebase handles recursive ones anyway. Thanks. I'll give it a try. -- Sebastian Schuberth
