Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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 ?
It would be good
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" but not introduce "reword!" insn
(3) document "--fixup=reword:<commit>" can be thought of as a mere
special-case short-hand for "--fixup=amend:<commit> --only",
and
(4) make sure "fixup=amend:<commit> --only" is usable as a
replacement for "--fixup=reword:<commit>".
but if we are not doing (3) and (4), then it would also be OK to
(1) to keep "--fixup=reword:<commit>"
(2) to keep "amend!" and introduce "reword!" insn
I would think.
