Andrew Pimlott <and...@pimlott.net> writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Fri Jun 14 12:31:57 -0700 2013:
>> It happened to work and I added a test. But then it occurred to me that
>> it might have been better to fix commit --fixup/--squash to strip the
>> fixup! or squash! from the referenced commit in the first place.
>> Anyhow, below is my patch for --autosquash, but unles someone has an
>> objection to doing it in commit, I'll work on that.
Is it always true that you would squash and fixup in the same order
as these follow-up commits happened?
That is, if you did this (time flows from top to bottom):
3 fixup A
4 squash B
5 fixup fixup A
6 fixup A
I am wondering if applying 6 on top of 5 is always what you want, or
you would want to apply it to 3 instead. Otherwise you would have
6 fixup fixup fixup A
The two reordering possibilities are:
1 A 1 A
3 fixup A 3 fixup A
5 fixup fixup A 6 fixup A
6 fixup A 5 fixup fixup A
2 B 2 B
4 squash B 4 squash B
If you strip out the prefix when you make commits, you may lose the
information if you want to use in order to express these different
orders. I am not sure if it matters in practice, but I am not yet
convinced it is a good idea.
By the way, the message I am responding to is not something we can
apply. I am assuming these paches are for discussion-only; before
sending the final one, please check Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
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