On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 03:48, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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"). > Agree. > 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!". Okay, so now if it's Ok to keep the short-hand "--fixup=reword" ? then I think making the documentation more clear would be sufficient to serve it to the users ? Otherwise if the votes are more that the user will get confused as both results in "amend!", then should we change this patch to "--only --fixup=amend" ?
