Hi, On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The problem is that both of you stopped reading after the part you > quoted. I did not. But I assumed that Hannes' example showed that it is always possible to reorder the commands such that you there is no problem with interpreting a short commit name as the original commit _until_ that commit is rewritten, and _then_ as the rewritten commit. It is a simple matter of the word "acyclic" in the term "DAG". It means that whenever you need to refer to a commit, it either comes before or after the commit you need it for, not both directions. And I tried to make clear that I thought deeply about the issue by mentioning that you can always use "edit" to stop somewhere and mark (even by a lightweight tag), should you need to split a commit such that you need to reference both the original and the rewritten commit. I think the balance to cut here is that of usability. You can cater for the obscure cases, but that just does not make sense. With some recipe -- as illustrated by Hannes -- it is very easy to see what it does, and as easy to modify it, should that be necessary. The alternative is obviously easier for the cases that next to nobody will need. So no, your argument does not convince me, and I still think that I understood it correctly from the start. Ciao, Dscho -- 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
