> subject of head
> body of head
>
> So, I am not sure about the other option to implement it ?
Thaks, and OK.
>> > + if (have_option_m)
>> > + die(_("cannot combine -m with --fixup:%s"), fixup_message);
>> > + else
>> > + prepare_amend_commit(commit, &sb, &ctx);
>>
>> Hmph, why is -m so special? Should we allow --fixup=amend:<cmd>
>> with -F (or -c/-C for that matter), or are these other options
>> caught at a lot higher layer already and we do not have to check
>> them here?
>
> yes, those options are caught earlier and give the error as below:
> "Only one of -c/-C/-F/--fixup can be used."
> and only `-m` is checked over here.
And the reason why -m cannot be checked early is because we do not
recognize which kind of "fixup" we are doing when "only one of
-c/-C/-F/--fixup" check is made before this function is called?
OK. I wonder if we can tell which kind of fixup we are doing much
earlier, though. Then we could extend it to say "Only one of
-c/-C/-F/-m/--fixup=amend:<commit> can be used", etc., and we do not
have to have this "only -m is checked here, everything else is
checked earlier" curiosity. But I do not know if such a change is
necessarily an improvement. I guess a better "fix" would probably
be to add a comment to this function where it only checks for "-m"
and tell readers why -c/-C/-F do not have to be checked here.
Thanks.
