Hi Junio,
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I made this same mistake over and over again, myself. For some reason,
> > John Keeping decided to use the singular form "revision" in 1e0dacdbdb75
> > (rebase: omit patch-identical commits with --fork-point, 2014-07-16), not
> > the plural.
>
> Perhaps we should give a synonym to the option? Renaming it to the
> plural form may keep the existing usage working as it would be the
> unique abbreviation, which may be a way to reduce the mistake.
The obvious plan is to switch from spawning a separate process after
parsing the `git rebase` options just to execute the interactive rebase to
performing both parts in the same process.
In other words: this option will simply go away.
I'd much rather spend time and effort on designing a nice API for calling
the rebase backends in-process than on adding code that adds some plural
form (which might not even be appropriate, given that you really can only
pass one single negative revision to restrict the commit range).
Ciao,
Dscho
>
> >
> > So you will need to squash this in:
> >
> > -- snipsnap --
> > diff --git a/git-legacy-rebase.sh b/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> > index fb0395af5b1..7600765f541 100755
> > --- a/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> > +++ b/git-legacy-rebase.sh
> > @@ -145,8 +145,8 @@ run_interactive () {
> > test -n "$autosquash" && autosquash="--autosquash"
> > test -n "$verbose" && verbose="--verbose"
> > test -n "$force_rebase" && force_rebase="--no-ff"
> > - test -n "$restrict_revisions" && \
> > - restrict_revisions="--restrict-revisions=^$restrict_revisions"
> > + test -n "$restrict_revision" && \
> > + restrict_revision="--restrict-revision=^$restrict_revision"
> > test -n "$upstream" && upstream="--upstream=$upstream"
> > test -n "$onto" && onto="--onto=$onto"
> > test -n "$squash_onto" && squash_onto="--squash-onto=$squash_onto"
>
