Hi, On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> The commit not only must begin with "squash to " but also there has to > >> be a matching commit whose message begins with the remainder of the > >> title of the "squash to" commit _in the range you are rebasing > >> INTERACTIVELY_. > >> > >> In addition, the resulting rebase insn is presented in the editor, and > >> in a rare case where you do have such a commit, you can rearrange it > >> back. > > > > Well, that really sounds pretty awkward to me. I regularly call such > > commits "amend". If there is a risk I confuse myself as to which commit > > needs to be amended, I use "amend.<short-hint>". > > > > I'd really rather stay with "fixup". And as I use single-letter commands > > quite often, I'd also rather stay away from that magic "!". And by > > "magic" I really mean that: people will not find that magic intuitive at > > all. > > > > My vote is for "fixup". > > I am too tired to either make the final judgement nor proposal on this > topic now, Okay, I'll add another point that should convince you that the commit message is not the good place to trigger that behavior: Interactive rebasing is about having made a quite messy patch series, maybe having a few fixup commits, and then deciding how to clean it up. The decision how to clean it up is very much a rebase-time decision, not a commit-time decision. For example, it is very easy to decide that you want to squash one fixup after all instead of leaving it stand-alone. > Of course we _could_ use notes for that, but that won't play well with > rebasing I suppose ... Reminds me. Nothing has happened on that front, right? Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html