Re: [RFC PATCH] Make the rebase edit mode really end up in an edit state
- From
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss@iguanasuicide.net>
- Date
- Jan 15, 2009, 05:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200901142300.31718.bss@iguanasuicide.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <buo8wpdfbv9.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com>
On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote about 'Re: [RFC PATCH] Make the rebase edit mode really end up in an edit state':
Show 9 quoted lines
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss@iguanasuicide.net> writes: >>>We may need a version bump to 1.7.0 to update the UI for this command, >>> but please do test rigorously to build a stronger case for a saner UI. >> >> Instead of changing the meaning of edit, how about introducing a >> "replace" command? > >That seems like at best an awkward workaround, not a real solution to >the problem,
Actually, I think it's a better solution (or rather a solution to the real problem) because others have already said they like and expect the current edit behavior.
The "real problem" is you need different behavior for your interactive rebasing.
>which is that the term "edit XXXX" suggests you're starting >with XXXX and modifying it.
Exactly. "edit" is: While interactively rebuilding history (rebase -i), you get to the first place that commit existed and then modify it (commit --amend or other tools).
>The term "replace" by contrast, seems more >to connote entirely removing XXXX and substituting something else.
Exactly. "replace" is: While rebasing you stop just before the commit existed (changes are even staged) and decide to do something else (like using add -i and a few commit commands to split the thing up or whatever).
>[I do wonder how on earth the current awkward behavior was accepted in >the first place...]
(Actually, I do too, but it's accepted and expected behavior now--good reason not to change it.)
-- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/