From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:42:48 GMT
Subject: Re: How to implement the "amend!" commit ?
Message-ID: <0236bb58-61a7-6126-b50f-93e8b6bf3aef@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YACAHdDEMIgvQruK@nand.local>

Hi Taylor

On 14/01/2021 17:32, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:39:50AM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>> Secondly, As an alternative to above, we can use `--fixup=<commit>
>>> --amend` and `--fixup=<commit> --reword`.
>>
>> This is not backwards compatible. At the moment If you create a fixup with
>> `git commit --fixup=aaa` and then realize it should refer to commit bbb
>> instead you can fix it with `git commit --amend --fixup=bbb`. That would no
>> longer be possible.
> 
> Too bad. I felt that this was the most ergonomic idea put forwards, but
> I also thought that we died with '--amend --fixup=xxx'. Its current
> behavior does make sense to me, but it's too bad that we can't use it
> for this new purpose.

I guess we could decide to change the behavior but I'm not sure there is 
a sufficiently compelling reason to do that. I agree the current 
behavior makes sense but (based on no data at all) I'm not sure that it 
is used very much. One thing I like about this option is that it is much 
easier to create an alias to create a particular type of fixup, with 
--fixup=amend:<commit> you have to use a shell function alias to do 
that. The down side of re-purposing "--amend" is that it no longer 
always rewrites HEAD which is potentially confusing.

> I suppose the first option (the '--fixup=reword:xxx' one really is the
> only one that can be implemented while preserving backwards
> compatibility, so I think we have no choice but to go with that one.)

I agree, to me it feels a bit more cumbersome, but on the plus side I 
think it is arguably clearer than re-purposing '--fixup=<commit> 
--amend' and it is slightly less typing than specifying two options as well.

Thanks for your comments on this series

Best Wishes

Phillip

> Thanks,
> Taylor
>