Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I should have added "as a convenience". Squash and fixup are similar
> enough that it seems reasonable for them to both support -c. Saves
> people from having to remember that only fixup allows -c.
Yeah, "fixup" could have been a plain "squash" with some option. It
could have been two options, "-i" ("ignore message of this one") and
"-o" ("use message of this one alone"), and then today's "fixup"
would have been "squash -i", and today's "fixup -c" would have been
"squash -o".
But I agree that "squash -c" is something one may find tempting to
type, after learning "fixup -c".
I forgot to comment on the real contents of your review, by the way.
Everything you said was reasonable.
