Hi, On Thu, 1 May 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > The idea I hinted at was to refer to them by another name than the short > > name. Then we can use the sequencer machinery. > > > > I still maintain that it is such a rare need (even if you are a power user > > of it) that it makes sense to cater for other, simpler uses. > > As usual, I am greedy and I would want to have both supported in such a > way that (1) simple things are simple and (2) the language is expressive > enough that complex things are possible. Agreed. > And I try to stress that while we are still in the drawing board phase, > because it would be painful to change once we start with a language > without enough expressiveness. Unfortunately, we are no longer in the drawing board phase, because the offending code is already in 'next'. > And that was where my "Can the approach to use the original commit ID to > stand for rewritten one express everything we would want to do in the > future, not just limited to 'rebase -i -p'" series of questions came > from. I maintain that it can. Because you can _still_ refer to the original commit name quite easily: just take one more letter. In the meantime I thought about the "<commit name>'" approach (note the single apostrophe at the end), though, and it seems that this would not be too involved. But hey, the code is so ugly and complicated by now, that I avert my eyes to other tasks. 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
