On 09/16/2010 06:39 PM, Pat Notz wrote:
> These options make it convenient to construct commit messages for use
> with 'rebase --autosquash'. The resulting commit message will be
> "fixup! ..." or "squash! ..." where "..." is the subject line of the
> specified commit message.
>
> Example usage:
> $ git commit --fixup HEAD~2
> $ git commit --squash HEAD~5
>
> Signed-off-by: Pat Notz <patnotz@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
So far I've been using an alias for these, but I suppose making them
real features of git could be worthwhile. What are the benefits with
this approach vs. an alias?
> @@ -863,7 +871,7 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
> if (force_author && renew_authorship)
> die("Using both --reset-author and --author does not make sense");
>
> - if (logfile || message.len || use_message)
> + if (logfile || message.len || use_message || fixup_message || squash_message)
> use_editor = 0;
> if (edit_flag)
> use_editor = 1;
The whole point of squash is to combine two commit texts, right?
Otherwise wouldn't you use --fixup where you throw away the text
eventually and thus don't want to open an editor?
> @@ -883,15 +891,19 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
> f++;
> if (edit_message)
> f++;
> + if (fixup_message)
> + f++;
> + if (squash_message)
> + f++;
> if (logfile)
> f++;
> if (f > 1)
> - die("Only one of -c/-C/-F can be used.");
> + die("Only one of -c/-C/-F/--fixup/--squash can be used.");
> if (message.len && f > 0)
> - die("Option -m cannot be combined with -c/-C/-F.");
> + die("Option -m cannot be combined with -c/-C/-F/--fixup/--squash.");
Furthering that point, perhaps I want to squash this commit into another
commit using the commit text from yet another commit or just with an
extra note from the command line (-m). Perhaps this is where the benefit
over an alias comes in?
> if (edit_message)
> use_message = edit_message;
> - if (amend && !use_message)
> + if (amend && (!use_message && !fixup_message && !squash_message))
> use_message = "HEAD";
> if (!use_message && renew_authorship)
> die("--reset-author can be used only with -C, -c or --amend.");
> @@ -932,6 +944,23 @@ static int parse_and_validate_options(int argc, const char *argv[],
> if (enc != utf8)
> free(enc);
> }
> + if (fixup_message || squash_message) {
> + unsigned char sha1[20];
> + struct commit *commit;
> + const char * target_message = fixup_message ? fixup_message : squash_message;
> + const char * msg_fmt = fixup_message ? "fixup! %s" : "squash! %s";
Style nit: stick the * to the variable.
I read this and became confused. fixup_message? target_message? Perhaps
it should be renamed to fixup_commit, squash_commit, target_commit?
> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> + struct pretty_print_context ctx = {0};
> +
> + if (get_sha1(target_message, sha1))
> + die("could not lookup commit %s", target_message);
> + commit = lookup_commit_reference(sha1);
> + if (!commit || parse_commit(commit))
> + die("could not parse commit %s", target_message);
> +
> + format_commit_message(commit, msg_fmt, &buf, &ctx);
> + fixup_message_buffer = strbuf_detach(&buf, NULL);
> + }
>
Is it necessary to do this block of code here? Couldn't you lookup and
format the commit in prepare_to_commit()? Then we wouldn't have to
allocate another strbuf and the "message" code would be more centralized.
--
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