Firmin Martin <firminmartin24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> True. But if we require confirmation before overwriting patches, >> that would be overall worsening the end-user experience, I am >> afraid. In a 5-patch series with a cover-letter that was formatted, >> proofread, corrected with "rebase -i" and then re-formatted, unless >> you rephrased the titles of the patches, you'd get prompted once for >> the cover letter (which *IS* valuable) and five-times for patches >> (which is annoying). > This is true for this patch, but the semantics changed after the patch > #3. I really should have squashed them together to not create > confusion. Sorry about that. No, please keep them separate. What we can do to avoid confusion like I showed is to make a note on the earlier one, saying "with this the user experience looks like this, which may be suboptimal for such and such reasons, but in a later step it will be improved in this and that way".
