Hey, I do understand you can be very stressed. It is a huge project. Very important for an uncountable group of people. A lot of demands and argumentation from all over. I know too that it is human nature to ask other people to agree with them completely. Much more when they are in charge. So, no problem. It was just a big surprise when I read your email. You had been so nice to me until that moment... But let's keep talking about code. I am not a big fan of human nature subjects. Although I have to be more personal for just a little. I want to show you my way of seeing things: I love defaults! A command or an option already set for the most common scenario... It's wonderful. But I like to have full control of any tool I use. If I want to do any bizarre thing nobody has ever thought about... I think I should be able to. Without any hacking. I can hammer a nail with a wrench. But I would prefer a hammer for that. I think your suggestions which changed the path of this intended function since the beginning were very good for a default. So I think --reset-author did it. Normally 95% of the time its behavior is what people will be needing. But cutting off a remote possibility for no heavy and unbearable reason imho makes features incomplete. That is why I had suggested not cutting off --author functionality when using --reset-author. I did not try to conceive all possible uses for this combination but I knew someone could find some. I have told you a simple case just to picture some figures. Nanako showed you a case you agreed. Thanks Nanako. I was not defying your judgment or showing lack of respect to you. My text after "---" was very clear about that. Thank you again Nanako for showing me the importance of this little text. About scripting abilities: I don't see a way to compare scripting "levels". Scripts are so easy that you just know or not. Different approaches could be compared. At start I really did not get the use of the "t" folder tests. I thought it was just to show functionalities. Nanako in her critics made me understand within her speach the importance of those tests. Then you clarified it much more later. So I got those informations and made another script trying to test --reset-author completely. Separating every bit of data that could show a malfunctioning. And taking also the care of letting auditing more reliable and informational. So I accepted your rough saying about "teaching" as an explosion of stress. I have to tell that our work-flow on that time was: you demanded and I made a change. The script you added was an example to me under this work-flow. I am not a kid and I have a real and busy life but I do think spending time sharing some changes I use to improve something which I value is not a lost time. As you can see by the time I had sent the emails, I was doing them overtime. So I would like to make clear that I did and do want to help as much as I can. If it is not possible to use my work then just know you and every free software coder has a big fan in me. I will be transmitting good energies to you all in any case. No hard feelings. :-) I hope you can continue doing the wonderful work you have been doing for a very long future. Best regards. 2009/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> It may be wise to forbid a combination of options if it >> encourages mistakes or a wrong workflow, but I don't think >> using --author and --reset-author with 'git commit --amend' >> is such a case. >> >> Imagine somebody other than you (eg. me) were the maintainer, >> and a message by Szeder was sent with a good commit log message. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132029 >> >> Then you sent a replacement patch that solves the same problem >> in a more elegant way, but without anything that is usable as the >> commit log message. >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132041 >> >> If I were the maintainer, I would find it very convenient if I can >> work like this: >> >> % git am -s 132029 --- first I apply Szeder's version >> >> Then I see your message. Replace the code change but use Szeder's >> log message. >> >> % git reset --hard HEAD^ >> % git am 132041 --- your version with no usable log message >> % git commit --amend -s -c @{2} --author='Junio C Hamano <...>' > > Thanks. > > So you commit Szeder's and then commit mine (make them independent), and > amend the log message of the latter using the message from the former, and > assign the authorship of the latter to the resulting commit? > > That is a much more understandable argument than just claiming "--author > should be usable with --reset-author" without clearly stating why that > would help. I think you forgot to add --reset-author to the last command > line, though. > > But I think it is showing that --reset-author is actually suboptimal way > to solve your scenario. In the last command in your sequence, you don't > want to add "--reset-author --author=X" but want "--reuse-only-message" > option. > > And I think it makes much more sense than the alternative semantics we > came up with during this discussion. --mine (or --reset-author) to > declare that "I am the author" was not what we wanted after all(yes, I am > guilty for suggesting it). What we want is "I am using -C/-c/--amend and > I want to borrow only the message part from the named commit (obviously > "amend" names the HEAD commit implicitly). Determine the authorship > information (including author timestamp) as if I didn't use that option." > -- 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