Re: squashing patches

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 9, 2008, 21:02 UTC
Message-ID: <7vskvmfhjj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080609204327.GD8079@leksak.fem-net>

Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> > Comments? Opinions? Ideas?
>> 
>> I actually expected that the primitive command sequence the backward
>> compatible "edit" would expand to would be a pair, "pick" followed by
>> "pause".
>
> Something "like" this was my veeeery first approach: "edit" with commit
> was the backwards-compatible "edit" and without arguments was your
> "pause".
> Example:
> 	pick ea7beef
> 	edit		# or "pause" as you suggested
> After a little discussion this became:
> 	pick --edit ea7beef
>
> And I can't objectively say what's better

Me neither. My "expectation" came primarily from what I understood, namely you seemt to prefer atomism, and not from "I want things to be this way".

If we think any proposed and future instruction would be reasonable to have --edit option, then all insn implementation would need to support "edit" option anyway, and the users do not have to remember which insn does and does not support --edit so both forms would work equally well (and "--edit option" would make the insn stream shorter, which may be good). But probably "mark --edit" and "reset --edit" would not make sense, so a separate "edit" insn may be more generic and useful.

Show 5 quoted lines

> The open question is, if we should do this by a natural number <n> or
> by a commit.
> The natural number approach seems easier, but imagine someone pauses
> and does some commits (not --amend)... Here the behavior of these
> approaches differs. ;-)

I see. Not using count but setting an explicit mark and using that commit sounds more robust, considering that use case.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> About the other parts in your original message:
>> 
>>  - The "tag" command looked a little out of place;
>
> Eh, why?

Why not?

I just wondered why there was a support only for lightweight tag there. You do not have "branch" command, and your "tag" command does not seem to support things like -a, -s, -m<msg>, etc. Not that I think you should support full "tag" and "branch" command set, but it seemed a bit odd.