> Jrg Sommer <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Wouldn't
> > >
> > > pick 5cc8f37 (init: show "Reinit" message even in ...)
> > > mark 1
> > > pick 18d077c (quiltimport: fix misquoting of parse...)
> > > mark 2
> > > reset 1
> >
> > "reset 18d077c~2" or "reset some-tag" or "reset my-branch~12"
> >
> > merge #2
> > >
> > > be easier for people?
> >
> > I don't know. Using the special sign everywhere a mark is used looks more
> > consistent to me. The only case where it might be omitted is the mark
> > command, because it only uses marks.
>
> Why not use the mark syntax that fast-import uses? In fast-import
> we use ":n" anytime we need to refer to a mark, e.g. ":1" or ":5".
> Its the same idea. We already have a language for it. Heck, the
> commands above are bordering on a language not too far from the
> one that fast-import accepts. :-)
I like the idea of adding marks to an interactive rebase in general, but instead
of adding a separate command, what if rebase *automatically* marked all the
commits in the session:
1: pick 5cc8f37 (init: show "Reinit" message even in ...)
2: pick 18d007c (quiltimport: fix misquoting of parse ...)
reset 1
merge 2
or "reset :1" and "merge :2". Neither notation bothers me for marks.
--Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
