Hi Matthieu, thanks for taking a look at this patch series. I might have caused some confusion by starting with version v1 again after removing the RFC tag. The current reroll[1] is tagged with PATCH v1, not PATCH RFC v2. I'm sorry if this is the reason why your reply appears on this sub-thread. Your concerns below are of course noted. Fabian [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/254361 Matthieu Moy writes: > Fabian Ruch <bafain@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh >> +++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh >> @@ -555,20 +555,7 @@ do_next () { >> comment_for_reflog reword >> >> mark_action_done >> - do_pick $sha1 "$rest" >> - # TODO: Work around the fact that git-commit lets us >> - # disable either both the pre-commit and the commit-msg >> - # hook or none. Disable the pre-commit hook because the >> - # tree is left unchanged but run the commit-msg hook >> - # from here because the log message is altered. >> - git commit --allow-empty --amend --no-post-rewrite -n ${gpg_sign_opt:+"$gpg_sign_opt"} && >> - if test -x "$GIT_DIR"/hooks/commit-msg >> - then >> - "$GIT_DIR"/hooks/commit-msg "$GIT_DIR"/COMMIT_EDITMSG >> - fi || { >> - warn "Could not amend commit after successfully picking $sha1... $rest" >> - exit_with_patch $sha1 1 >> - } >> + do_pick --edit $sha1 "$rest" > > I would have found this easier to review if squashed into the previous > patch. My reaction reading the previous patch was "Uh, why duplicate > code?", and reading this one "Ah, that's OK". A single patch doing both > would have avoided the confusion. -- 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