{"thread":{"id":"18358","subject":"Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","startedAt":"2009-03-17T18:53:23Z","lastAt":"2009-04-10T19:04:30Z","messageCount":16,"participants":["Olivier Goffart","Johannes Schindelin","Jeff King","Junio C Hamano","Sverre Rabbelier","Michael J Gruber","Marcel M. Cary","Michael Witten"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"108273","messageId":"200903171953.23650.ogoffart@kde.org","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Olivier Goffart","fromEmail":"ogoffart@kde.org","sentAt":"2009-03-17T18:53:23Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-17T18:53:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ogoffart@kde.org","avatar":null},"body":"Hello.\n\nI use git in a workflow in wich we often need to edit the message logs of some \ncommits.\nThe way we do it is using git rebase -i    and choose edit.   \nBut then you need to do git commit --amend and git rebase --continue,  which \nis error prone and add more useless steps.\n\nThe attached patch add a new keyword to git rebase interactive to just edit \nthe message log.\n\nI was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, and \nlooking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a patch :-)\n\nDo you think it make sens to have that in git?\n\nPlease CC me replies.\n\n-- \nOlivier\n\n\n[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/105738\n(my patch is different from this one as it adds a new keyword rather than \nchange the behavior of one existing one)\n\n\n\ncommit 71793acdd9f926ea52d034b17ac3465e3a810799\nAuthor: Olivier Goffart <ogoffart@kde.org>\nDate:   Tue Mar 17 19:41:40 2009 +0100\n\n    rebase interactive: add the possibility to easily edit the message log of commits\n\ndiff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\nindex 3dc659d..6ded58e 100755\n--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n+++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n@@ -406,6 +406,16 @@ do_next () {\n \t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"\"\n \t\tfi\n \t\t;;\n+\tmessage|m)\n+\t\tcomment_for_reflog message\n+\n+\t\tmark_action_done\n+\n+\t\tpick_one $sha1 ||\n+\t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Could not apply $sha1... $rest\"\n+\n+\t\tgit commit --amend || failed=t\n+\t\t;;\n \t*)\n \t\twarn \"Unknown command: $command $sha1 $rest\"\n \t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Please fix this in the file $TODO.\"\n@@ -730,6 +740,7 @@ first and then run 'git rebase --continue' again.\"\n #  p, pick = use commit\n #  e, edit = use commit, but stop for amending\n #  s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit\n+#  m, message = use commit and promt the editor to edit the message log\n #\n # If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.\n # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.\n"},{"id":"108288","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0903172329480.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"200903171953.23650.ogoffart@kde.org","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-03-17T22:31:19Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-17T22:31:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Olivier Goffart wrote:\n\n> I use git in a workflow in wich we often need to edit the message logs \n> of some commits. The way we do it is using git rebase -i and choose \n> edit.  But then you need to do git commit --amend and git rebase \n> --continue, which is error prone and add more useless steps.\n> \n> The attached patch add a new keyword to git rebase interactive to just \n> edit the message log.\n> \n> I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, \n> and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a \n> patch :-)\n\nUnfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best \nname.  The first letter \"m\" will be taken in a short while by the \"merge\" \ncommand for \"rebase -i -p\", so \"message\" is out, sadly.\n\nBut the \"rephrase\" command will be part of the \"rebase -i -p\" series when \nI will finally be able to submit it.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"108300","messageId":"20090318004056.GB25454@coredump.intra.peff.net","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0903172329480.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2009-03-18T00:40:56Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T00:40:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:31:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> > I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, \n> > and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a \n> > patch :-)\n> \n> Unfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best \n> name.  The first letter \"m\" will be taken in a short while by the \"merge\" \n> command for \"rebase -i -p\", so \"message\" is out, sadly.\n> \n> But the \"rephrase\" command will be part of the \"rebase -i -p\" series when \n> I will finally be able to submit it.\n\nAlso, I thought the general plan was to add such features to the\ngit-sequencer work which will (hopefully) eventually replace \"rebase\n-i\". Dscho, can you give a brief update on how that is coming? Are\nrebase patches worth thinking about?\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"108302","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0903180155270.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"20090318004056.GB25454@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-03-18T00:58:13Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T00:58:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:31:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > > I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, \n> > > and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a \n> > > patch :-)\n> > \n> > Unfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best \n> > name.  The first letter \"m\" will be taken in a short while by the \"merge\" \n> > command for \"rebase -i -p\", so \"message\" is out, sadly.\n> > \n> > But the \"rephrase\" command will be part of the \"rebase -i -p\" series when \n> > I will finally be able to submit it.\n> \n> Also, I thought the general plan was to add such features to the\n> git-sequencer work which will (hopefully) eventually replace \"rebase\n> -i\". Dscho, can you give a brief update on how that is coming? Are\n> rebase patches worth thinking about?\n\nIMHO rebase -i is the important part.  The user interface needs some \nserious overhaul, which I am in the slow process of doing.  The sequencer \nthen has to follow suit.\n\nAs it stands, I think sequencer is not good enough yet to replace rebase \n-i (all my comments about that are public, except the heads-up I sent \nStephan in private).\n\nTo be frank, 'rebase -i -p' support, as it is in git.git is not good \nenough at all.  That's why I was working on that, and I am close to \nfinishing it.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"108305","messageId":"7vsklbod0l.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"20090318004056.GB25454@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-03-18T01:06:34Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T01:06:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n\n> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:31:19PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n>\n>> > I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago, \n>> > and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a \n>> > patch :-)\n>> \n>> Unfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best \n>> name.  The first letter \"m\" will be taken in a short while by the \"merge\" \n>> command for \"rebase -i -p\", so \"message\" is out, sadly.\n>> \n>> But the \"rephrase\" command will be part of the \"rebase -i -p\" series when \n>> I will finally be able to submit it.\n>\n> Also, I thought the general plan was to add such features to the\n> git-sequencer work which will (hopefully) eventually replace \"rebase\n> -i\". Dscho, can you give a brief update on how that is coming? Are\n> rebase patches worth thinking about?\n\nI am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us.  Do we also want to\nintroduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded\nwithout giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message?\n"},{"id":"108337","messageId":"fabb9a1e0903172242v6f67aa9er40fe0ae2a2db7bc3@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"7vsklbod0l.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-03-18T05:42:29Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T05:42:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 02:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:\n> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n> I am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us.  Do we also want to\n> introduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded\n> without giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message?\n\nIs that a common operation? Rephrase is, at least to me...\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"108359","messageId":"49C0C4C5.5070802@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0903172242v6f67aa9er40fe0ae2a2db7bc3@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2009-03-18T09:54:13Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T09:54:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Sverre Rabbelier venit, vidit, dixit 18.03.2009 06:42:\n> Heya,\n> \n> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 02:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:\n>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n>> I am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us.  Do we also want to\n>> introduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded\n>> without giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message?\n> \n> Is that a common operation? Rephrase is, at least to me...\n> \n\nRephrase for sure is common, and for sure can be done currently... It's\nonly that \"commit --amend, save&quit, continue\" could be shortened.\n\nOTOH: Most commonly one would want to rephrase a commit message or two\nwithout actually rebasing anything. And the proposed change doesn't help\nas much as it could, in two respects:\n\n1) I want to be able to say \"rephrase HEAD~2\" without having to edit a\nrebase action script. (That would be useful for rewriting a single\ncommit as well, and could be added easily.)\n\n2) Currently, all rebasing operations have trouble with merges. But if\nall I want to do is rephrasing a log message then no diff/apply is\nnecessary, no rewriting of trees, no change in the DAG structure (i.e.\nconnectivity; sha1s change, of course). So there should be a special\nmode for DAG-preserving rewrites, where one can be sure that merges are\nfully preserved.\n\n2) seems to be the most important point to make rephrasing safe and\nconvenient.\n\nMichael\n"},{"id":"108374","messageId":"49C10A97.6060201@oak.homeunix.org","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"49C0C4C5.5070802@drmicha.warpmail.net","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Marcel M. Cary","fromEmail":"marcel@oak.homeunix.org","sentAt":"2009-03-18T14:52:07Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T14:52:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"marcel@oak.homeunix.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/2bb524e4f383167b7e256bb93256c88353748d9873c34cde0fd461f1165baa0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Michael J Gruber wrote:\n> Sverre Rabbelier venit, vidit, dixit 18.03.2009 06:42:\n>> Heya,\n>>\n>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 02:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:\n>>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n>>> I am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us.  Do we also want to\n>>> introduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded\n>>> without giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message?\n>> Is that a common operation? Rephrase is, at least to me...\n>>\n> \n> Rephrase for sure is common, and for sure can be done currently... It's\n> only that \"commit --amend, save&quit, continue\" could be shortened.\n> \n> OTOH: Most commonly one would want to rephrase a commit message or two\n> without actually rebasing anything. And the proposed change doesn't help\n> as much as it could, in two respects:\n> \n> 1) I want to be able to say \"rephrase HEAD~2\" without having to edit a\n> rebase action script. (That would be useful for rewriting a single\n> commit as well, and could be added easily.)\n> \n> 2) Currently, all rebasing operations have trouble with merges. But if\n> all I want to do is rephrasing a log message then no diff/apply is\n> necessary, no rewriting of trees, no change in the DAG structure (i.e.\n> connectivity; sha1s change, of course). So there should be a special\n> mode for DAG-preserving rewrites, where one can be sure that merges are\n> fully preserved.\n> \n> 2) seems to be the most important point to make rephrasing safe and\n> convenient.\n\nInteresting points about skipping the action script and preserving\nstructure.  I just tried to do something like that with filter-branch:\n\ngit filter-branch --msg-filter 'cat > tmp;  $EDITOR tmp < '$(tty)' >\n'$(tty)' 2>&1; cat tmp' ^HEAD^ HEAD\n\nAnd discovered that it will neither accept \"HEAD^^..HEAD^\" nor \"HEAD^\"\nas a shortcut for a rev-list containing a single commit.  But if you're\ncontent to save and quit each message through the branch tip and specify\nthe range, it seems to work.\n\nI have no idea what it would take to make filter-branch support the\nadditional kinds of rev and rev list specifications, or if that would be\nundesirable.\n\nI'm assuming it accomplishes (2) because of the nature of filter-branch.\n\nMarcel\n"},{"id":"108420","messageId":"49C16150.6070001@earth.care2.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"49C10A97.6060201@oak.homeunix.org","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Marcel M. Cary","fromEmail":"marcel@earth.care2.com","sentAt":"2009-03-18T21:02:08Z","receivedAt":"2009-03-18T21:02:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"marcel@earth.care2.com","avatar":null},"body":"Marcel M. Cary wrote:\n> Michael J Gruber wrote:\n>> Sverre Rabbelier venit, vidit, dixit 18.03.2009 06:42:\n>>> Heya,\n>>>\n>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 02:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:\n>>>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n>>>> I am not quite sure what rephrase is buying us.  Do we also want to\n>>>> introduce retree that allows you to muck with the tree object recorded\n>>>> without giving you a chance to clobber the commit log message?\n>>> Is that a common operation? Rephrase is, at least to me...\n>>>\n>> Rephrase for sure is common, and for sure can be done currently... It's\n>> only that \"commit --amend, save&quit, continue\" could be shortened.\n>>\n>> OTOH: Most commonly one would want to rephrase a commit message or two\n>> without actually rebasing anything. And the proposed change doesn't help\n>> as much as it could, in two respects:\n>>\n>> 1) I want to be able to say \"rephrase HEAD~2\" without having to edit a\n>> rebase action script. (That would be useful for rewriting a single\n>> commit as well, and could be added easily.)\n>>\n>> 2) Currently, all rebasing operations have trouble with merges. But if\n>> all I want to do is rephrasing a log message then no diff/apply is\n>> necessary, no rewriting of trees, no change in the DAG structure (i.e.\n>> connectivity; sha1s change, of course). So there should be a special\n>> mode for DAG-preserving rewrites, where one can be sure that merges are\n>> fully preserved.\n>>\n>> 2) seems to be the most important point to make rephrasing safe and\n>> convenient.\n> \n> Interesting points about skipping the action script and preserving\n> structure.  I just tried to do something like that with filter-branch:\n> \n> git filter-branch --msg-filter 'cat > tmp;  $EDITOR tmp < '$(tty)' >\n> '$(tty)' 2>&1; cat tmp' ^HEAD^ HEAD\n> \n> And discovered that it will neither accept \"HEAD^^..HEAD^\" nor \"HEAD^\"\n> as a shortcut for a rev-list containing a single commit.  But if you're\n> content to save and quit each message through the branch tip and specify\n> the range, it seems to work.\n> \n> I have no idea what it would take to make filter-branch support the\n> additional kinds of rev and rev list specifications, or if that would be\n> undesirable.\n> \n> I'm assuming it accomplishes (2) because of the nature of filter-branch.\n\nOk, so I guess you have to explicity tell filter-branch all the commits \nthat reach the ones you want to rewrite so it will know to fixup their \nparents.  Below is a rough way of doing that, but sometimes it will find \ntoo many commits, and it's rather slow, even on a git.git.\n\ngit-rephrase:\n#!/bin/sh\n\nif [ -z \"$EDITOR\" ]; then\n     export EDITOR=vim\nfi\n# Does change tags\nrefs=$(git for-each-ref --format='%(refname)' 'refs/heads/*' |\n     while read ref; do\n         # This is the slow part\n         if git rev-list $ref | grep -q $(git rev-parse --verify $1); then\n             echo $ref\n         else\n             echo ^$ref\n         fi;\n     done\n)\nparents=$(git rev-list --max-count=1 --parents $1 | {\n     read hash parents\n     for hash in $parents; do\n         echo ^$hash\n     done\n})\ngit filter-branch --msg-filter \"\n     if [ \\$GIT_COMMIT = $(git rev-parse $1) ]; then\n         cat > tmp\n         \\$EDITOR tmp < $(tty) > $(tty) 2>&1\n         cat tmp\n     else\n         cat\n     fi\n\" $refs $parents\n"},{"id":"111005","messageId":"200904101417.56422.ogoffart@kde.org","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0903172329480.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Olivier Goffart","fromEmail":"ogoffart@kde.org","sentAt":"2009-04-10T12:17:50Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T12:17:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ogoffart@kde.org","avatar":null},"body":"Le Tirsdag 17 mars 2009, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :\n> Hi,\n>\n> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Olivier Goffart wrote:\n> > I use git in a workflow in wich we often need to edit the message logs\n> > of some commits. The way we do it is using git rebase -i and choose\n> > edit.  But then you need to do git commit --amend and git rebase\n> > --continue, which is error prone and add more useless steps.\n> >\n> > The attached patch add a new keyword to git rebase interactive to just\n> > edit the message log.\n> >\n> > I was told on IRC that this has been discussed already not so long ago,\n> > and looking on the archive[1], all i seen was bikesheeding .  Here is a\n> > patch :-)\n>\n> Unfortunately, the implementation is not the problem, but picking the best\n> name.  The first letter \"m\" will be taken in a short while by the \"merge\"\n> command for \"rebase -i -p\", so \"message\" is out, sadly.\n>\n> But the \"rephrase\" command will be part of the \"rebase -i -p\" series when\n> I will finally be able to submit it.\n\nHi,\nSorry I'm late to reply :-)\n\nI still think this feature to edit the message in git rebase -i is really \nusefull.  So 'm' is really taken, what about 'r' for 'rephrase'?\n\nor maybe 'rephrase' is something different?\n\nRegards\n-- \nOlivier\n\n\ncommit 5d784b748328c7bccfddab7edba5a9dcf70518b8\nAuthor: Olivier Goffart <ogoffart@kde.org>\nDate:   Tue Mar 17 19:41:40 2009 +0100\n\n    rebase interactive: add the possibility to easily edit the message log of commits\n\ndiff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\nindex 314cd36..91714d6 100755\n--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n+++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n@@ -406,6 +406,16 @@ do_next () {\n \t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"\"\n \t\tfi\n \t\t;;\n+\trephrase|r)\n+\t\tcomment_for_reflog message\n+\n+\t\tmark_action_done\n+\n+\t\tpick_one $sha1 ||\n+\t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Could not apply $sha1... $rest\"\n+\n+\t\tgit commit --amend || failed=t\n+\t\t;;\n \t*)\n \t\twarn \"Unknown command: $command $sha1 $rest\"\n \t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Please fix this in the file $TODO.\"\n@@ -754,6 +764,7 @@ first and then run 'git rebase --continue' again.\"\n #  p, pick = use commit\n #  e, edit = use commit, but stop for amending\n #  s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit\n+#  r, rephrase = use commit and promt the editor to edit the message log\n #\n # If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.\n # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.\n"},{"id":"111006","messageId":"b4087cc50904100537j64e8fef1u157c717fe4d8207b@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"200904101417.56422.ogoffart@kde.org","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-04-10T12:37:10Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T12:37:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:17, Olivier Goffart <ogoffart@kde.org> wrote:\n> Hi,\n> Sorry I'm late to reply :-)\n>\n> I still think this feature to edit the message in git rebase -i is really\n> usefull.  So 'm' is really taken, what about 'r' for 'rephrase'?\n>\n> or maybe 'rephrase' is something different?\n\nHow about 'a' for an immediate [a]mend?\n"},{"id":"111007","messageId":"b4087cc50904100541h2dfb0902jf38f3254394afad0@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"b4087cc50904100537j64e8fef1u157c717fe4d8207b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-04-10T12:41:48Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T12:41:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:37, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:\n> How about 'a' for an immediate [a]mend?\n\nHowever, rebase still seems overkill for most situations. I'd bet that\nusually people want to amend just 1 or 2 commit messages. Perhaps\ngit-commit's --amend could take optional arguments and then run rebase\nappropriately behind the scene.\n"},{"id":"111020","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0904102019250.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"b4087cc50904100537j64e8fef1u157c717fe4d8207b@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-04-10T18:21:30Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T18:21:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Michael Witten wrote:\n\n> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:17, Olivier Goffart <ogoffart@kde.org> wrote:\n> > Hi,\n> > Sorry I'm late to reply :-)\n> >\n> > I still think this feature to edit the message in git rebase -i is really\n> > usefull.  So 'm' is really taken, what about 'r' for 'rephrase'?\n> >\n> > or maybe 'rephrase' is something different?\n> \n> How about 'a' for an immediate [a]mend?\n\ngit commit --amend lets you amend the modifications in addition to the \nmessage, so I think it would be too ambiguous.\n\nFWIW I planned to split my rebase-i-p patch series into two parts: the \nfirst part adding a few commands, and the second part actually making it \npossible to rebase interactively _and_ preserving merges.  (So far, if you \nused -p, you better did not reorder or delete any lines.)\n\nHowever, this will have to wait until after Easter.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"111022","messageId":"b4087cc50904101150i31f1bbfdre73bec44dac580eb@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0904102019250.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-04-10T18:50:07Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T18:50:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 13:21, Johannes Schindelin\n<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:\n>>> I still think this feature to edit the message in git rebase -i is really\n>>> usefull. =A0So 'm' is really taken, what about 'r' for 'rephrase'?\n>>>\n>>> or maybe 'rephrase' is something different?\n>>\n>> How about 'a' for an immediate [a]mend?\n>\n> git commit --amend lets you amend the modifications in addition to the\n> message, so I think it would be too ambiguous.\n\nHow about edit-message|edit-m|em ?\n\nAlso, I still like the idea of being able to write:\n\n    git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^\n\nand then have the rebase setup and started for me.\n\nHow about:\n\n    git commit --amend-message ...\n\nfor just the commit message?\n\nP.S.\n\nSorry for the duplicate, Johannes.\n"},{"id":"111023","messageId":"fabb9a1e0904101154o6b4759ddk879bcdabcc03add6@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"b4087cc50904101150i31f1bbfdre73bec44dac580eb@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-04-10T18:54:06Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T18:54:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 20:50, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:\n> Also, I still like the idea of being able to write:\n>\n>    git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^\n>\n> and then have the rebase setup and started for me.\n\nSuggested before and shot down with \"how would that work in the light\nof merges?\"\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"111025","messageId":"b4087cc50904101204l783acb9lb40b7abfc8573a62@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"18358","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0904101154o6b4759ddk879bcdabcc03add6@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-04-10T19:04:30Z","receivedAt":"2009-04-10T19:04:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 13:54, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:\n> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 20:50, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote:\n>> Also, I still like the idea of being able to write:\n>>\n>>    git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^\n>>\n>> and then have the rebase setup and started for me.\n>\n> Suggested before and shot down with \"how would that work in the light\n> of merges?\n\nI guess that depends on what Johannes Schindelin said:\n> FWIW I planned to split my rebase-i-p patch series into two parts: the first part adding a few commands, and the second part actually making it possible to rebase interactively _and_ preserving merges.  (So far, if you used -p, you better did not reorder or delete any lines.)\n\nUnfortunately, I've never thought about it, so I don't fully\nunderstand the implications. However, why should someone with a\nsimpler scenario have to suffer because of someone else's hypothetical\nnightmare? ;-D\n\nOn a separate note:\n\nTo clarify, I was specifying two commits that I want to amend (HEAD~5\nand HEAD^). For instance, this specifies 3 commits:\n\n    git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^ HEAD~10\n\nHowever, I'm sure it would also be useful to allow ranges as well.\nShould the dot notation (THIS..THAT) be reappropriated? I ask, because\nit doesn't really mean range.\n"}]}