Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >> >> The reason why I insist on not putting this into --amend is that I >> >> think this is not really an amend, but actively a rewrite of the >> >> merge commit. >> > >> > You have a point here. I'm convinced. Scrap the patch. >> >> I am slow today. Since when --amend is not about "a rewrite of commit"? > > Technically, you are right, of course. Commit objects are immutable. But > from a _porcelain_ view I maintain that "amending" is about changes _to_ a > commit. It is not about redefining the (a) parent. Well, if you already branched off the commit, the changes "to the commit" will not register on the branch. So my view is that amending is about changes to HEAD, not to the HEAD commit. And since branching is certainly a porcelain operation and is clearly not affected by amending commits, I think that the "rewrite of a commit" wording strikes a good balance between "the original commit remains" and "it is functionally replaced in the HEAD". -- David Kastrup - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
