Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> > I'd really rather stay with "fixup". >> >> I like fixup. I'd say "fixup: <message>" so that the thing actually >> looks like a program directive rather than natural language. [...] > edited edit list: > > pick b1ab1ab First commit > fixup 0123456 This is a fixup for the first commit > pick deafbee Second commit Sorry, we were not talking about the same thing: I was still talking about the dwimery in the commit message. So, yes, your "fixup" (that could be abbreviated by "f") sounds good to me. But some (optional) magic to get the edited list by default could be nice in addition, and that could be triggered by "fixup: ..." in the commit message. I do often find myself commiting something knowing that the commit is meant for rebase+squash-ing (i.e. I know that at commit time more often than at rebase time). (not yet 100% convinced myself, and I can sure do without) -- Matthieu -- 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