Thomas Rast <> writes:

> Isn't it a bit of an academic question?
> ...
> And once you have that, it seems a nicer and cleaner idea to generate
> 'fixup! A' each time, instead of a successive sequence of
>   fixup! A
>   fixup! fixup! A
>   fixup! fixup! fixup! A
>   ...

As to reordering, you are absolutely correct.

If you are going to apply all three anyway, then the end result
either does not change at all (when none of them overlap textually),
or you will end up with unnecessary conflicts (when they do).

But if you were to pick (and drop some), all three labeled with
"fixup A" vs later ones having more "fixup" in front will make a
difference in identification and usability.  When you want to drop
the second fixup, "fixup fixup A" can be chosen unambiguously in
your editor among "fixup A", "fixup fixup A" and "fixup fixup fixup

It also somewhat feels wrong when the user sees this:

    $ git log --oneline -2
    xxxx A
    yyyy fixup! A

and asks to do this:

    $ git commit --fixup yyyy

and if you end up with "fixup! A", not "fixup! fixup! A".  The user
is asking to follow-up on the "fixup! A", not on the original "A".

Does dropping these leading "fixup!" (or "squash!") at commit time
make the application in "rebase -i --autosquash" significantly
easier to do?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to