Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> I don't think this patch series stops us implementing something for rebase but >>> it would mean we couldn't use the name reword! unless we allow `git commit >>> --reword` to take an optional commit which I'm not that keen on. >>> >>> What do you think to an alternative name? >> I am really worried that the proliferation of confusingly similar >> options >> will increase Git's reputation for being awfully hard to use. > ... > The reason I'm not keen on having --amend or --reword take an optional > commit is that I think it is confusing as it means sometimes that > option creates a new commit and sometimes it modifies the last commit > furthermore passing --reword=HEAD would not reword HEAD but creates a > reword! commit. Adding just another subjective view to the two already presented, but I think --reword, as presented by Phillip, sits better next to the existing --amend. I wonder if we can extend the existing "--fixup <commit>" (and perhaps "--squash <commit>") to make them work better with the workflow Dscho envisions? Explicit presence of the "-e" option might be a way to tell the command to behave differently from the current "--fixup" and to leave a mark that is different from 'fixup!" in the resulting commit to affect the later "rebase" step as well, for example.
