On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 05:40:01PM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
I think the original text's "those identified by" is a bit vague: Does
"those" mean "messages" or "commits"? The sentence reads like "those"
stands for "messages", but then of course you don't identify *messages*
with "squash" commands.
fair enough, though the repetition makes it linguistically inferior.
Maybe emphasize the word "only" in the sentence (i.e. spell it as
'only').
that seems excessive to me. i'm not assuming that my readers are dumb.
To really drive the point home it could say something like
obtained 'only' from the "fixup -c" commit, dropping the
messages of all the other involved commits
as above.
also, i'm actually uneasy about including the exact behavior in the
first place, as it codifies something questionable - a better response
from git would be complaining about it. i will drop it.
(having more than one "fixup -c" commit
+makes no sense, and only the message from the last one is used).
"Makes no sense" seems a bit opinionated (although I agree with the
sentiment).
i'm not terribly worried about readers who have an aversion towards
being told facts ...
anyway, i will use "is incorrect" instead, as it seems more to the
point.
Also, you can legitimately have more than one "fixup -c" in the overall
instruction set, as long as there's at least one "pick" command in
between, e.g.
yes, but the context is a single fixup sequence. the above comments
about readers and repetition apply here, too.
[1] Makes me wonder if rebase should also support "squash -c"...
the distinction is that "squash" combines the messages, while "fixup"
discards them, and the -c merely changes what is discarded. softening
that up seems counter-productive to me.
thanks
