Re: [PATCH] Re: rebase -i: auto-squash commits

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> The commit not only must begin with "squash to " but also there has to 
>>>> be a matching commit whose message begins with the remainder of the 
>>>> title of the "squash to" commit _in the range you are rebasing 
>>>> INTERACTIVELY_.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the resulting rebase insn is presented in the editor, and 
>>>> in a rare case where you do have such a commit, you can rearrange it 
>>>> back.
>>>
>>> Well, that really sounds pretty awkward to me.  I regularly call such 
>>> commits "amend".  If there is a risk I confuse myself as to which commit 
>>> needs to be amended, I use "amend.<short-hint>".
>>>
>>> I'd really rather stay with "fixup".  And as I use single-letter commands 
>>> quite often, I'd also rather stay away from that magic "!".  And by 
>>> "magic" I really mean that: people will not find that magic intuitive at 
>>> all.
>>>
>>> My vote is for "fixup".
>>
>> I am too tired to either make the final judgement nor proposal on this 
>> topic now,
> 
> Okay, I'll add another point that should convince you that the commit 
> message is not the good place to trigger that behavior:
> 
> Interactive rebasing is about having made a quite messy patch series, 
> maybe having a few fixup commits, and then deciding how to clean it up.
> 
> The decision how to clean it up is very much a rebase-time decision, not a 
> commit-time decision.
> 
> For example, it is very easy to decide that you want to squash one fixup 
> after all instead of leaving it stand-alone.
> 
>> Of course we _could_ use notes for that, but that won't play well with
>> rebasing I suppose ...
> 
> Reminds me.  Nothing has happened on that front, right?