Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I do not think this kind of editorializing belongs in the commit's > message, but this likely isn't the first commit message that expresses > an opinion. Thanks for saying this. > I like the overall phrasing here. > > But I think you should remove the "but this should not be relied upon" > phrase. This reads as if Git's current behaviour is undefined, which > most definitely is not true. > > Even changing this to something like "but this might change in the > future" is unhelpful. Everything in Git is subject to change over a > long-enough time span, so the same could be said about every aspect of > Git. > > Until the behaviour actually changes, it's perfectly fine for people > to use multiple "fixup -c" commands. There's no reason to scare them > off of it. And that would simplify the description to make it easier to follow by readers who are *not* involved in the development process. > >> +If the resulting commit message is a concatenation of multiple messages, >> +an editor is opened allowing you to edit it. This is also the case for a >> +message obtained via "fixup -c", while using "fixup -C" instead skips >> +the editor; this is analogous to the behavior of `git commit`. >> +The author information (including date/timestamp) always comes from >> +the first commit; this is the case even if "fixup -c/-C" is used, >> +contrary to what `git commit` does. > > This phrasing is much better. > > Thanks for putting up with my pedantry! Thanks for a good review. I guess the patch is very near the finish line?
