Re: git rebase --interactive commits order
- From
- Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>
- Date
- May 13, 2011, 17:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110513175112.GA14079@vidovic>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v39klgng7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
The 11/05/11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Richard Peterson <richard@rcpeterson.com> writes: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >> Devils lie in the details. For example, should squash/fixup come before > >> or after the squashed commit when --reverse is in effect, and why? > >> > >> Should "rebase --reverse --continue" work after it gets interrupted, if > >> not why not? > > > > Yes, it should work,... > > Of course, if you start with --reverse, it is clear and obvious that > 'continue' should continue with the reversed instruction sheet, and it > probabaly should take --reverse as a no-op when given with --continue. > The original question should have been written more carefully to avoid > soliciting the response that addresses that uninteresting case.
I don't understand. Why not just _display_ the commit in reverse order?
Then, from the user POV commands like squash, fixup, etc would apply in reverse order too (from up to down); keeping the mental model for "apply against ancestor".
-- Nicolas Sebrecht