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): 1 A 2 B 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 written 6 fixup fixup fixup A instead. 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. Thanks. -- 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