From: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 17:51:12 GMT
Subject: Re: git rebase --interactive commits order
Message-ID: <20110513175112.GA14079@vidovic>
In-Reply-To: <7v39klgng7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

The 11/05/11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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