On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 2:44 AM Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:09, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:52 AM Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> > > > + Without `amend:` or `reword:`, create a `fixup!` commit where > > > + the commit message will be the subject line from the specified > > > + commit with a prefix of "fixup!'". The resulting "fixup!" commit > > > + is further used with `git rebase --autosquash` to fixup the > > > + content of the specified commit. By the way, now that you explained in the other thread that "short" prefix-matching of "amend" and "reword" are allowed, I realize that the documentation doesn't mention it (or at least I don't remember reading it). (Nevertheless, I still feel uncomfortable about supporting short prefix-matching in the initial implementation without any evidence that users will demand it, since we can't change that decision once it's in the hands of users.) > > > + When the commit log message begins with "squash! ..." (or "fixup! ..." > > > + or "amend! ..."), and there is already a commit in the todo list that > > > > Should this also be mentioning `reword!`? > > No, as both `amend` and `reword` suboptions create "amend!" commit > only. I think it seems a bit confusing but I will try another attempt > to reword the document. Hmm, I see. So "reword!" is really just an "amend!" with only commit message but no patch content. That makes perfect sense from an implementation standpoint, but it makes me wonder if it would be easier for users to understand if it created a "reword!" commit which would be recognized as an alias of "amend!". (But maybe that's getting too confusing, and my musing should be ignored.) This also answers an unasked question I had regarding the duplicate "amend! amend!" check. I was wondering why it wasn't also checking for "reword! reword!".
