Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> no paths, i.e. If you have --fixup=amend, you can do >> >> $ git commit --fixup=amend:<original> --only >> >> and you do not need --fixup=reword:<original> at all, no? >> > > Maybe as an alternative User interface, we can remove the > `--fixup=reword:<original>`. > > But for this patch, as we have kept separate suboption > `--fixup=reword:<original>` , so if now we do > `--fixup=amend:<original> --only` then it will return the error as > below : > fatal: No paths with --include/--only does not make sense. Yes, but it is something we can easily fix, just like we made "--only" without any pathname to work with "--amend" (or with "--allow-empty"). The reason I brought it up was not because "--fixup=reword" is not needed as a short-hand for "--only --fixup=amend" (but thinking about it again, I do not think it is so bad), but primarily in response to "would it be easier for users if we had reword! insn in addition to amend! verb in the todo file?" that was raised earlier in the thread. If we position "--fixup=reword" as a short-hand and/or a syntax sugar for "--fixup=amend" and advertise it as such sufficiently to educate users, it would be easier for users to understand why they both result in "amend!".
