From: Philip Oakley Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 19:02:16 GMT Subject: Re: Fixup of a fixup not working right Message-ID: <6C5AB39424064692A416A490B861D330@PhilipOakley> In-Reply-To: From: "Johannes Schindelin" > Hi Philip, > > On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Philip Oakley wrote: > >> From: "Johannes Schindelin" >> >> > The point is that fixup! messages are really special, and are always >> > intended to be squashed into the referenced commit *before* the latter >> > hits `master`. >> >> I think it's here that we have the hidden use case. I agree that all >> fixups >> should be squashed before they hit the blessed golden repository. >> >> I suspect that some use cases have intermediate repositories that >> contain a 'master' branch (it's just a name ;-) that isn't blessed and >> golden, e.g. at the team review repo level. In such cases it is possible >> for a fixup! to be passed up as part of the review, though it's not the >> current norm/expectation. > > In such a case (which can totally arise when criss-crossing Pull Requests > on GitHub, for example, where a Pull Request's purpose may be to fix up > commits in another Pull Request before the latter is merged), the most > appropriate course of action is... to not reorder the fixup!s prematurely. We just need to be careful about that plural just there. If it is multiple fixup!s for the same commit, then I believe they should be grouped together at the same point as the first fixup! commit (in their original order). If they are for different commits, then they should stay in their place in the commit series (for their first occurrence, then rule 1 applies) > >> > In short, I am opposed to this change. >> >> It's not like G4W doesn't need fixup!s on the side branches e.g. 5eaffe9 >> ("fixup! Handle new t1501 test case properly with MinGW", 2016-07-12) I note that you don't have two fixup!s for that commit > Yeah, well, Git for Windows' `master` branch is special, in that it is > constantly rebased (as "merging rebases", to keep fast-forwardability). I > would not necessarily use Git for Windows as a role model in this respect. I don't see GfW as 'special', rather as being a representative of a broader realpolitik where some of the rugged individualism of open source is moderated in some way or another. > Ciao, > Dscho > -- Philip