Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:31:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> > I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, >> > and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding . Here is a >> > patch :-) >> >> Unfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best >> name. The first letter "m" will be taken in a short while by the "merge" >> command for "rebase -i -p", so "message" is out, sadly. >> >> But the "rephrase" command will be part of the "rebase -i -p" series when >> I will finally be able to submit it. > > Also, I thought the general plan was to add such features to the > git-sequencer work which will (hopefully) eventually replace "rebase > -i". Dscho, can you give a brief update on how that is coming? Are > rebase patches worth thinking about? I am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us. Do we also want to introduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded without giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message? -- 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
