On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 11:56 +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote: > I never really understood why commit message editing had to be part of > the "refresh" command. If it were a separate command and not tied to > refresh, we could allow editing the message (and author, committer, > date, ...) of any commit in the stack -- since the tree objects would > be unchanged, we could just reuse the same tree objects when rewriting > the commit objects on top of it. > > That's obviously not going to work if we allow editing of the patch. > But patch editing isn't a good fit as a refresh switch either, since > it's not at all related to replacing the tree of the current patch > with the working tree. Purely from the code standpoint, yes, it should be a separate command. But it may be practical to have both in one command, since I commonly need to change the description after changing the code. We need to think what would be convenient for the normal workflow. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - 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
