Andrew Pimlott <> writes:

> I agree that it is better to preserve information as long as feasible.
> If we are going to strip it, it may as well be later.  That is Thomas's
> rearrange_squash patch, which I will send again.


> The next question is, do we go all the way and respect the nested
> fixup!s in rearrange_squash?  I understand the case for it, though it's
> hardly compelling to me in practice. :-)  That would be more complicated
> than Thomas's patch.  But I'm happy to try it if someone gives me a
> nudge.  If not, at least the information is preserved in case someone
> wants to do this later.

I think it is fine not to be too smart, as long as we do not lose
information that would help the user to compensate.

After all, autosquash will give the user an opportunity to eyeball
the result of automatic rearrangement.  If the user did this:

        git commit -m original
        git commit --fixup original ;# obviously fixing the first one
        git commit --fixup '!fixup original' ;# explicitly fixing the second
        git commit --fixup original ;# may want to fix the first one

and then "git rebase --autosquash" gave him this:

        pick d78c915 original
        fixup 0c6388e original
        fixup d15b556 !fixup original
        fixup 1e39bcd original

it may not be what the user originally intended, but I think it is

As long as "!fixup original" message is kept in the buffer, the user
can notice and rearrange, e.g.

        pick d78c915 original
        fixup 0c6388e original
        fixup 1e39bcd original
        fixup d15b556 !fixup original

if the user really wants to.
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