Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > The use of ellision `...` isn't great, as it gives no hint or clue, > leaving the subsequent test with a difficult explanation. True. If you are planning to correct it in 2/2, then I think it makes more sense to squash that in to have a single patch. > Clarify if a full oid has is required, or a unique abbreviation within > the respository, or just uniques within the rebase instruction? Puzzled. You must know the answer to "do we need a full object name, or is it sufficient to have anything that gives us a unique commit object name?" so why not write it in the patch instead of asking the question here? Or do you not know the answer and this is a RFC/WIP patch???? > This is a minimal change that sidesteps the chance to rewrite/clarify > the potential wider confusions over specifying the <commit> being > referred to in the fixup/squash process. Hmph. So this step cannot be reviewed to judge if it is a good change by itself? Let me locally recreate a squashed single patch and review _that_ instead. > Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 18 ++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > index 4624cfd288..462cb4c52c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt > @@ -571,16 +571,18 @@ See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below. > > --autosquash:: > --no-autosquash:: > - When the commit log message begins with "squash! ..." (or > - "fixup! ..."), and there is already a commit in the todo list that > - matches the same `...`, automatically modify the todo list of rebase > + When the commit log message begins with "squash! <line>" (or > + "fixup! <line>"), and there is already a commit in the todo list that > + matches the same `<line>`, automatically modify the todo list of rebase > -i so that the commit marked for squashing comes right after the > commit to be modified, and change the action of the moved commit > + from `pick` to `squash` (or `fixup`). > ++ > +A commit matches the `<line>` if > +the commit subject matches, or if the `<line>` refers to the commit's > +hash. As a fall-back, partial matches of the commit subject work, > +too. The recommended way to create fixup/squash commits is by using > +the `--fixup`/`--squash` options of linkgit:git-commit[1]. > + Overall it looks much better than the original. The original did not even attempt to define what is a "match" for the purpose of this option, so the ellipses may have been OK, but once we need to refer to what is there, we need a name to refer to it and ellipses no longer are sufficient, and using the step 1/2 alone would not make any sense. We definitely should take the step 2/2 together with it. "A commit matches the <line> if the commit subject matches" is not a great definition of what a "match" is, though. The readers are left in the same darkness about what constitutes a "match" of <line> against "the commit subject". If you define this "subject matches" as a substring match, for example, you do not even have to say "as a fall-back"---it is by (the updated version of your) definition that how the commit subject and <line> matches so there is no need to allow any fall-back involved.
