On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Of course, the same applies to edit/squash/fixup/reword, though if I
> > could go back in time...(warning, long tangent coming)...I would make
> > it so those four directives did not accept any commit ID argument.
> > Only "pick" and "reset" would accept a commit ID. Instead, today's
> > "edit X" would be two commands ("pick X" followed by either "break" or
> > "edit"), "fixup X" would be "pick X" + "fixup", and "reword X" would
> > be "pick X" + "reword". That'd help users understand rebase state
> > much better (it's so easy for users to get confused by whether they
> > should be using `git commit --amend` vs. `git rebase --continue` and I
> > think this is partially to blame, though there's other changes we
> > could make to help with that dichotomy as well). The separate
> > directives would also make it much easier to figure out how to both
> > fixup and edit a single commit in the same rebase (pick the commit,
> > then add a fixup directive, then an edit directive).
>
> Intriguing, and I feel sad that it probably is too late for all of
> the above X-<.
Yeah, I know. One more thing for the "if we had a time machine" list...
> > In fact, "squash
> > X" could just be discarded as superfluous, since it's just "pick X" +
> > "fixup" + "reword" (or we could keep squash as an abbreviation for
> > both "fixup" + "reword").
>
> IIUC, your "fixup" is
>
> git reset --soft HEAD^
> git commit --amend --no-edit
>
> i.e. discard the log message from "fixup" and use only its tree, and
> your "reword" is
>
> git commit --amend --edit
>
> so "pick X" + "fixup" + "reword" would not be quite usable as a
> replacement of our "squash X" (or your "pick X" + "squash"), I am
> afraid. You'd want the log message from "X" as well as "X^" to
> edit the replacement of X^.
Oh, good point. So, in that alternate world we'd still need a squash directive.
