On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:13 PM Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 23:55, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (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 ... This works for me too, especially the bit about improving the documentation to be more clear that --fixup=reword: is a special-case (or syntactic sugar) for --fixup=amend:. My confusion all along was thinking that --fixup=amend: and --fixup=reword: resulted in distinct "amend!" and "reword!" prefixes. I don't know whether that confusion was due to me not reading the commit messages or documentation carefully enough, or because the behavior wasn't clearly documented or easily understood. (I did have to re-read the documentation patch multiple times in an attempt to understand what it was saying, so perhaps I can blame that. ;-) At any rate, it will be good if we can get it clearly documented. > > 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. This option would likely be less desirable since it could confuse people into thinking that "reword!" would become "reword" in the sequencer instruction sheet -- which isn't the case at all -- it becomes "fixup -c" (or -C, I can't remember).
