Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce allow-inline-reword option

> "Théo MAILLART via GitGitGadget"<gitgitgadget@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> This new option (false by default) for interactive rebase allows users
>> to modify the subject of a commit directly in the todo list, when they
>> select the "reword" action.
>> If the option is enabled, "reword" is selected and the subject has not
>> changed, then the default behaviour is used.
>> It also introduces a test for this specific option, and a related
>> function (set_inline_reword_editor) in the lib-rebase.sh to use a
>> simpler custom fake editor to be able to modify the message part of the
>> lines in a todo list (in the most simple cases).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Théo Maillart<tmaillart@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>      [RFC] rebase: reword: new feature change the subject in the todo list
> It is not clear if you meant this as a final submission or an RFC
> but I'll take it as an RFC for now.
>
> A handful of things come to my mind.
>
>   * Would this want to be a new variant of "reword" that you would
>     write into the todo list file, instead of a command line option
>     that says "every 'reword' I write in the todo list file means
>     something different now"?
>
>   * Is there a plausible UI that allows inline editing of a commit
>     log message that is more than one line long?  Should there be?
>
>   * Under "inline" mode, when a "reword" is requested for a commit
>     that has more than one line of log message, what should happen?
>     Should the updated title become the ONLY content of the log of
>     the updated commit?  Should it be an error, because it is clearly
>     an information-losing operation?  Would it make sense to turn the
>     "inline" reword into normal reword automatically for a commit
>     with more than one line of log message?
>
>   * If we choose to special case a commit with more than one line of
>     message in order to prevent the 'inline' mode from losing
>     valuable information in the original commits, what role should
>     trailer lines play when we decide if a commit has only one line
>     of message?  For example, if a lazy "title only" commit has no
>     body message but a sign-off and other trailers like helped-by,
>     would it make sense to keep the trailers intact and only replace
>     the title, still in inline mode?

>
> Here is an alternative design that may be conceptually cleaner.
>
>   * We do not introduce a new option at all.  "reword" means "open
>     the editor and you can edit the whole thing" as always.
>
>   * We introduce "retitle" that can be used instead of "reword".
>
>     The line for a commit originally shows "pick" followed by an
>     abbreviated commit object name followed by its title, and the
>     body of the message and the trailer is hidden.  If you change
>     "pick" to "retitle" and edit the shown title, then the original
>     log message from the commit is read as a whole, its title line is
>     replaced with what "retitle" line has, and the result is used as
>     the updated log message.
>
> That way, those who write more than one line of commit log message
> can still use the feature without having to worry about losing
> information when the only thing they want to fix is a typo in the
> title, and those who write only one line of commit log message do
> not have to pass the new "--inline" option at all.  They can use
> 'retitle' instead of 'reword'.
>
> Hmm?
>