Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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". Ok, it's noted.
