Re: git rebase interactive: usability issue

From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 26, 2008, 03:59 UTC
Message-ID: <32541b130806252059l30431fcbld6196bedb32ab397@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vbq1ovpl7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On 6/25/08, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

>  I was relunctant about the patch not because of "edit", but because I am
>  not convinced that it will _never_ make sense to be able to amend while
>  the sequence stops with a conflict (as the patch does not give us any way
>  to override this rather heavy-handed denial to continue).

Perhaps the problem is more that people are encouraged to --amend so often that they end up doing it by accident.

What if 'edit' worked more like 'squash', in that it produced the new tree, but didn't commit it yet? Then you can reset things, commit them, or rebase --continue (which commits automatically if needed) just like wish 'squash'.

I think --continue used to not commit automatically, so I can see why edit used to commit for you, but maybe that behaviour is not needed anymore.

Right now the asymmetry of having to use --amend with 'edit' but not with 'squash' is what leads me to make mistakes sometimes.

Have fun,

Avery