On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 23:55, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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>". > Okay, I agree that this method is more clear ... > 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 > ... than this one and will update the patch in the above (former) suggested way. Thanks for suggestions and detailed explanation. Thanks and Regards, Charvi
