{"thread":{"id":"21128","subject":"[PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","startedAt":"2009-10-04T19:06:23Z","lastAt":"2009-10-06T05:53:55Z","messageCount":13,"participants":["Björn Gustavsson","Johannes Schindelin","Junio C Hamano","Sverre Rabbelier","Anders Melchiorsen","Johannes Sixt"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"124205","messageId":"4AC8F22F.5070101@gmail.com","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Björn Gustavsson","fromEmail":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-10-04T19:06:23Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-04T19:06:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/74840?v=4"},"body":"Make it easier to edit just the commit message for a commit\nusing 'git rebase -i' by introducing the \"amend\" command.\n\nSigned-off-by: Björn Gustavsson \n---\nHere is my first ever patch of git.\n\nI find that I often use 'git rebase -i' just to correct typos\nin my commit messages or to fill in more details, so I thought\nit would be a good idea to add to add an \"amend\" command to\n'git rebase -i'.\n\n/Björn\n\n Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 3 +++\n git-rebase--interactive.sh | 9 +++++++++\n t/lib-rebase.sh | 6 +++---\n t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh | 14 ++++++++++++++\n 4 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt\nindex 0aefc34..28b90ec 100644\n--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt\n+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt\n@@ -368,6 +368,9 @@ By replacing the command \"pick\" with the command \"edit\", you can tell\n the files and/or the commit message, amend the commit, and continue\n rebasing.\n \n+If you just want to edit the commit message for a commit, you can replace\n+the command \"pick\" with the command \"amend\".\n+\n If you want to fold two or more commits into one, replace the command\n \"pick\" with \"squash\" for the second and subsequent commit. If the\n commits had different authors, it will attribute the squashed commit to\ndiff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\nindex 23ded48..3f6bcc0 100755\n--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n+++ b/git-rebase--interactive.sh\n@@ -340,6 +340,14 @@ do_next () {\n \t\tpick_one $sha1 ||\n \t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Could not apply $sha1... $rest\"\n \t\t;;\n+\tamend|a)\n+\t\tcomment_for_reflog amend\n+\n+\t\tmark_action_done\n+\t\tpick_one $sha1 ||\n+\t\t\tdie_with_patch $sha1 \"Could not apply $sha1... $rest\"\n+\t\toutput git commit --amend\n+\t\t;;\n \tedit|e)\n \t\tcomment_for_reflog edit\n \n@@ -752,6 +760,7 @@ first and then run 'git rebase --continue' again.\"\n #\n # Commands:\n # p, pick = use commit\n+# a, amend = use commit, but allow editing of the commit message\n # e, edit = use commit, but stop for amending\n # s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit\n #\ndiff --git a/t/lib-rebase.sh b/t/lib-rebase.sh\nindex 260a231..2ca0481 100644\n--- a/t/lib-rebase.sh\n+++ b/t/lib-rebase.sh\n@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@\n #\n #\t\"[] []...\"\n #\n-# If a line number is prefixed with \"squash\" or \"edit\", the respective line's\n-# command will be replaced with the specified one.\n+# If a line number is prefixed with \"squash\", \"edit\", or \"amend\", the\n+# respective line's command will be replaced with the specified one.\n \n set_fake_editor () {\n \techo \"#!$SHELL_PATH\" >fake-editor.sh\n@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ cat \"$1\".tmp\n action=pick\n for line in $FAKE_LINES; do\n \tcase $line in\n-\tsquash|edit)\n+\tsquash|edit|amend)\n \t\taction=\"$line\";;\n \t*)\n \t\techo sed -n \"${line}s/^pick/$action/p\"\ndiff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh\nindex 4cae019..3520480 100755\n--- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh\n+++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh\n@@ -470,4 +470,18 @@ test_expect_success 'avoid unnecessary reset' '\n \ttest 123456789 = $MTIME\n '\n \n+test_expect_success 'amend' '\n+\tgit checkout -b amend-branch master &&\n+\tFAKE_LINES=\"1 2 3 amend 4\" FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=\"E changed\" git rebase -i A &&\n+\tgit show HEAD | grep \"E changed\" &&\n+\ttest $(git rev-parse master) != $(git rev-parse HEAD) &&\n+\ttest $(git rev-parse master^) = $(git rev-parse HEAD^) &&\n+\tFAKE_LINES=\"1 2 amend 3 4\" FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=\"D changed\" git rebase -i A &&\n+\tgit show HEAD^ | grep \"D changed\" &&\n+\tFAKE_LINES=\"amend 1 2 3 4\" FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=\"B changed\" git rebase -i A &&\n+\tgit show HEAD~3 | grep \"B changed\" &&\n+\tFAKE_LINES=\"1 amend 2 3 4\" FAKE_COMMIT_MESSAGE=\"C changed\" git rebase -i A &&\n+\tgit show HEAD~2 | grep \"C changed\"\n+'\n+\n test_done\n-- \n1.6.5.rc2.18.g117a\n"},{"id":"124208","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910042308200.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"4AC8F22F.5070101@gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-10-04T21:09:03Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-04T21:09:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Björn Gustavsson wrote:\n\n> Make it easier to edit just the commit message for a commit\n> using 'git rebase -i' by introducing the \"amend\" command.\n\nI thought that we had a discussion about this and that the consensus was \nthat \"amend\" would be misleading. Maybe you can find that thread in \nGMane?\n\nCiao,\nDscho"},{"id":"124219","messageId":"6672d0160910042308v7280dcadyff97b977bcfe12c3@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910042308200.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Björn Gustavsson","fromEmail":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T06:08:49Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T06:08:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/74840?v=4"},"body":"2009/10/4 Johannes Schindelin :\n> I thought that we had a discussion about this and that the consensus was\n> that \"amend\" would be misleading.  Maybe you can find that thread in\n> GMane?\n\nI found this thread from January 2009:\n\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/105738\n\nHaving read the thread, I agree that \"amend\" would be misleading.\n\nThere were several suggestions for alternate command names\nin that thread, for example:\n\n\"msg\", \"msgedit\", \"message\", \"reword\", \"rephrase\"\n\nIt think that \"msgedit\" was suggested by several people. (\"editmsg\"\nwas also suggested, but it is not possible as the abbreviation \"e\" would\nbecome ambiguous.)\n\nWould the patch have a chance to be accepted if I renamed\nthe new command to \"msgedit\"?\n\n/Björn\n\n-- \nBjörn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB\n"},{"id":"124223","messageId":"7vocomfiyh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"6672d0160910042308v7280dcadyff97b977bcfe12c3@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T06:33:42Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T06:33:42Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Björn Gustavsson writes:\n\n> I found this thread from January 2009:\n>\n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/105738\n>\n> Having read the thread, I agree that \"amend\" would be misleading.\n\nYeah, I thought \"reword\" might be a good command name back then.\n\nWas the naming the only issue in the discussion there?\n"},{"id":"124231","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910051116480.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"6672d0160910042308v7280dcadyff97b977bcfe12c3@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-10-05T09:17:49Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T09:17:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Björn Gustavsson wrote:\n\n> 2009/10/4 Johannes Schindelin :\n> > I thought that we had a discussion about this and that the consensus was\n> > that \"amend\" would be misleading.  Maybe you can find that thread in\n> > GMane?\n> \n> I found this thread from January 2009:\n> \n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/105738\n> \n> Having read the thread, I agree that \"amend\" would be misleading.\n> \n> There were several suggestions for alternate command names\n> in that thread, for example:\n> \n> \"msg\", \"msgedit\", \"message\", \"reword\", \"rephrase\"\n> \n> It think that \"msgedit\" was suggested by several people. (\"editmsg\"\n> was also suggested, but it is not possible as the abbreviation \"e\" would\n> become ambiguous.)\n> \n> Would the patch have a chance to be accepted if I renamed\n> the new command to \"msgedit\"?\n\nMy objection was that the \"upcoming\" (yeah, Sverre, I am imitating Duke \nNukem Forever here) \"merge\" command would clash with \"msgedit\", which was \nwhy I suggested \"rephrase\" (but would be okay with \"reword\" Junio \nmentions).\n\nAFAIR the naming was the only objection.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"124233","messageId":"fabb9a1e0910050239h614118cfw8a5055e4ed966dd1@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910051116480.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T09:39:56Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T09:39:56Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\n2009/10/5 Johannes Schindelin :\n> My objection was that the \"upcoming\" (yeah, Sverre, I am imitating Duke\n> Nukem Forever here) \"merge\" command would clash with \"msgedit\", which was\n> why I suggested \"rephrase\" (but would be okay with \"reword\" Junio\n> mentions).\n\nI also dislike 'msgedit' because it's abbrev-ed, I would prefer\n\"reword\" for that reason.\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"124258","messageId":"6672d0160910050910x3a9aa6a3w742c09e7f2f42187@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0910050239h614118cfw8a5055e4ed966dd1@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Björn Gustavsson","fromEmail":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T16:10:59Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T16:10:59Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bgustavsson@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/74840?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:\n> 2009/10/5 Johannes Schindelin :\n>> My objection was that the \"upcoming\" (yeah, Sverre, I am imitating Duke\n>> Nukem Forever here) \"merge\" command would clash with \"msgedit\", which was\n>> why I suggested \"rephrase\" (but would be okay with \"reword\" Junio\n>> mentions).\n>\n> I also dislike 'msgedit' because it's abbrev-ed, I would prefer\n> \"reword\" for that reason.\n>\n\nThanks for the comments. \"reword\" it will be then. I'll send a new patch soon.\n\n-- \nBjörn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB\n"},{"id":"124271","messageId":"87ab05r5hg.fsf@dylle.kalibalik.dk","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"6672d0160910050910x3a9aa6a3w742c09e7f2f42187@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Anders Melchiorsen","fromEmail":"mail@spoon.kalibalik.dk","sentAt":"2009-10-05T19:43:55Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T19:43:55Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"mail@spoon.kalibalik.dk","avatar":null},"body":"Björn Gustavsson writes:\n\n> Thanks for the comments. \"reword\" it will be then. I'll send a new patch soon.\n\nIf you could also make it possible to edit the commit summary line\nright in the git-rebase-todo buffer, that would be great.\n\nBeing in an editor but still not able to fix typos is a nuisance.\n\n\nCheers,\nAnders.\n"},{"id":"124274","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910052248500.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"87ab05r5hg.fsf@dylle.kalibalik.dk","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-10-05T20:50:05Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T20:50:05Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Anders Melchiorsen wrote:\n\n> Björn Gustavsson writes:\n> \n> > Thanks for the comments. \"reword\" it will be then. I'll send a new patch soon.\n> \n> If you could also make it possible to edit the commit summary line\n> right in the git-rebase-todo buffer, that would be great.\n> \n> Being in an editor but still not able to fix typos is a nuisance.\n\nNAK.\n\nSupporting that would be totally out of line with the way rebase -i is \nsupposed to work.\n\nBesides, if you already have typos in the commit subject, you _better_ \ncheck the whole commit message, so: double NAK.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"124277","messageId":"7vbpkl8s8x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910052248500.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T21:07:10Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T21:07:10Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin writes:\n\n>> Being in an editor but still not able to fix typos is a nuisance.\n>\n> NAK.\n>\n> Supporting that would be totally out of line with the way rebase -i is \n> supposed to work.\n\nIf the rebase insn sheet were richer, and had a way to show the full\nmessage, like this:\n\npick 4973aa2 git-pull: dead code removal\n Back when a74b170 (git-pull: disallow implicit merging to detached HEAD,\n 2007-01-15) added this check, $? referred to the error status of reading\n HEAD as a symbolic-ref; but cd67e4d (Teach 'git pull' about --rebase,\n 2007-11-28) moved the command away from where the check is, and nobody\n noticed the breakage. Ever since, $? has always been 0 (tr at the end of\n the pipe to find merge_head never fails) and other case arms were never\n reached.\n \n These days, error_on_no_merge_candidates function is prepared to handle a\n detached HEAD case, which was what the code this patch removes used to\n handle.\n \n Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano \n\nI do not see why we shouldn't allow people to edit any part of the above\nto reword.\n\nI would even understand (but not necessarily agree) if somebody wants to\ngive the patch text and let users edit to reapply.\n\nSo I do not agree with your \"totally out of line\" at all.\n\n> Besides, if you already have typos in the commit subject, you _better_ \n> check the whole commit message, so: double NAK.\n\nThat sounds a bit too dogmatic.\n\nBut I tend to agree with you that we would be better off not accepting\nsuch a \"retitle\" patch, as it strongly encourages single-liner commit log\nmessages.\n\nOh, there was no patch? Then nevermind...\n"},{"id":"124281","messageId":"fabb9a1e0910051413nf8581c8vdf01508d59c4e1a4@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"7vbpkl8s8x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-10-05T21:13:35Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T21:13:35Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\n2009/10/5 Junio C Hamano :\n> If the rebase insn sheet were richer, and had a way to show the full\n> message, like this:\n\nBut that's not what rebase -i's insn sheet is about is it? It's not\n\"rewrite my commits so that they are the way I want them\", it's about\n\"change the order of my commits\"/squash some/drop some. The polishing\nof the commits itself is done after finishing the insn sheet.\n\n> I do not see why we shouldn't allow people to edit any part of the above\n> to reword.\n\nBecause it then becomes very hard to do any actual reordering. I'm not\nsaying it's a bad idea, just that it's a bad idea to do it in 'git\nrebase -i', conceptually. Although what you suggest would be useful to\nme, I just think it should be a different command, git rewrite perhaps\n:P. Definitely not \"git rebase -i --rewrite-message\" though, becaue it\nis not at all about rebasing anymore.\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"124283","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910052318230.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"7vbpkl8s8x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-10-05T21:26:03Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-05T21:26:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Johannes Schindelin writes:\n> \n> >> Being in an editor but still not able to fix typos is a nuisance.\n> >\n> > NAK.\n> >\n> > Supporting that would be totally out of line with the way rebase -i is \n> > supposed to work.\n> \n> If the rebase insn sheet were richer, and had a way to show the full\n> message, like this:\n> \n> pick 4973aa2 git-pull: dead code removal\n> Back when a74b170 (git-pull: disallow implicit merging to detached HEAD,\n> 2007-01-15) added this check, $? referred to the error status of reading\n> HEAD as a symbolic-ref; but cd67e4d (Teach 'git pull' about --rebase,\n> 2007-11-28) moved the command away from where the check is, and nobody\n> noticed the breakage. Ever since, $? has always been 0 (tr at the end of\n> the pipe to find merge_head never fails) and other case arms were never\n> reached.\n> \n> These days, error_on_no_merge_candidates function is prepared to handle a\n> detached HEAD case, which was what the code this patch removes used to\n> handle.\n> \n> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano \n> \n> I do not see why we shouldn't allow people to edit any part of the above\n> to reword.\n> \n> I would even understand (but not necessarily agree) if somebody wants to\n> give the patch text and let users edit to reapply.\n> \n> So I do not agree with your \"totally out of line\" at all.\n\nAre you serious? \"rebase -i\" was _always_ about showing an edit script, \ni.e. to tell Git _what_ you want to do with _which_ commits, identified by \nshort commit names.\n\nThe oneline was _always_ meant as a pure convenience for the user.\n\nThis paradigm has been true even to back when \"rebase -i\" was still called \n\"edit-patch-series\", and that is the reason I claimed that it is totally \nout of line. Because it is.\n\n> > Besides, if you already have typos in the commit subject, you _better_ \n> > check the whole commit message, so: double NAK.\n> \n> That sounds a bit too dogmatic.\n> \n> But I tend to agree with you that we would be better off not accepting\n> such a \"retitle\" patch, as it strongly encourages single-liner commit log\n> messages.\n\nNow, that is at least as dogmatic as what I proposed.\n\n> Oh, there was no patch? Then nevermind...\n\nSorry, but I changed my mind on this attitude. Earlier, you would find me \nvaluing arguments only when backed up by code. But since the GitTogether \nin Berlin I know of at least one discussion where somebody simply had not \nenough time to back up a (submodule-related) argument, the validity of the \nargument notwithstanding.\n\nSo not always is a \"no patch? Nevermind\" the correct thing to do.\n\nIn this particular case, however, I agree. Just touching up the first \nline of commit messages is such a special case, and so removed from what a \n\"rebase\" is about that I would claim that this case would be better \nhandled by a really trivial shell script that launches an editor and then \ndrives filter-branch based on what the user said.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"124294","messageId":"4ACADB73.1080504@viscovery.net","threadId":"21128","inReplyTo":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0910052318230.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] Teach 'rebase -i' the command \"amend\"","fromName":"Johannes Sixt","fromEmail":"j.sixt@viscovery.net","sentAt":"2009-10-06T05:53:55Z","receivedAt":"2009-10-06T05:53:55Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"j6t@kdbg.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14810926?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin schrieb:\n> Are you serious? \"rebase -i\" was _always_ about showing an edit script, \n> i.e. to tell Git _what_ you want to do with _which_ commits, identified by \n> short commit names.\n> \n> The oneline was _always_ meant as a pure convenience for the user.\n\nGood that you mention it: The one-liner is really convenient. I tend to\nreplace it by reminders like \"====== fix unused var\", \"===== edit msg\",\netc. (after marking the commit \"edit\") and I'm glad that rebase-i later\nprints the one-liner from the insn file rather than the original subject\nline before it stops.\n\n(I do it this way because on Windows I can't afford to call rebase-i on a\nlong patch series for every single task. Rather, I plan the tasks while\nthe insn editor is open, and this way I keep reminders about what the plan\nwas.)\n\nNo, I definitely don't want the one-liners to end up in the commit\nmessage. ;-)\n\n-- Hannes\n"}]}