Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/10] Teach rebase interactive the mark command

From: Paul Fredrickson <paul.fredrickson@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2008, 20:51 UTC
Message-ID: <69a88a530804131351n7d9f8188vf2bbb0174ade3ca0@mail.gmail.com>

Show 24 quoted lines

> Jrg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> > > Wouldn't
> > >
> > > pick 5cc8f37 (init: show "Reinit" message even in ...)
> > > mark 1
> > > pick 18d077c (quiltimport: fix misquoting of parse...)
> > > mark 2
> > > reset 1
> >
> > "reset 18d077c~2" or "reset some-tag" or "reset my-branch~12"
> >
> >         merge #2
> > >
> > > be easier for people?
> >
> > I don't know. Using the special sign everywhere a mark is used looks more
> > consistent to me. The only case where it might be omitted is the mark
> > command, because it only uses marks.
>
> Why not use the mark syntax that fast-import uses?  In fast-import
> we use ":n" anytime we need to refer to a mark, e.g. ":1" or ":5".
> Its the same idea.  We already have a language for it.  Heck, the
> commands above are bordering on a language not too far from the
> one that fast-import accepts.  :-)

I like the idea of adding marks to an interactive rebase in general, but instead of adding a separate command, what if rebase *automatically* marked all the commits in the session:

    1: pick 5cc8f37 (init: show "Reinit" message even in ...)
    2: pick 18d007c (quiltimport: fix misquoting of parse ...)
    reset 1
    merge 2

or "reset :1" and "merge :2".  Neither notation bothers me for marks.

--Paul