Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree there is an argument for improving the implementation of > --autosquash but until we do I think it is counterproductive to change > the documentation like this as it will cause users to wonder why > "rebase --autosquash" generates a todo list that is incorrect > according to the documentation. That's a good point. > I do think it is a good idea to document where the authorship of a > rebased commit comes from. Yeah, sounds like a good idea. As to the authorship information, it might be nicer if the "rebase -i" insn language supported an option to trigger --reset-author (or even better, --author=...) action for a single commit, but I presume that it is rather a rare event, and as long as people understand that they can stop the sequencing (e.g., an "edit" of the commit would do) and run "commit --amend", it should be OK, so it probably is OK to leave it as-is. Thanks.
