Re: [PATCH 13/13] contrib/subtree: Remove --annotate

From: James Nylen <jnylen@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2013, 13:27 UTC
Message-ID: <CABVa4NiyVksEn4+NqBPXpaWGYnP6FeUqeacLOnAOHtw9FgMJdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87pq0frnmb.fsf@waller.obbligato.org>

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:44 AM,  <greened@obbligato.org> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> Remove --annotate.  This obviates the need for an --unannotate
>>> command.  We really want a more generalized commit message rewrite
>>> mechanism.
>>
>> That may be a good goal as the end result, but wouldn't it be a bit
>> unhelpful to remove these before adding such a "more generalized"
>> mechanism to replace them?
>
> I did think about that.  I sent out an e-mail some time ago asking for
> opinions on this.  No one responded.  Since this is in contrib/ I feel
> comfortable getting rid of this option early so that people don't get
> too attached to it.  :)

I don't agree that removing `--annotate` obviates the need for `--unannotate`.

I responded on 1/17 with what I think is a typical and normal use case for that option:

 - add "fancylib" as a subtree of "myprog"
 - commit to "myprog" repo: "fancylib: don't crash as much"
 - split these commits back out to "fancylib" main repo, and remove
the "fancylib: " prefix

In my opinion this is a pretty normal workflow. Commits to "fancylib" in the "myprog" repo are prefixed with "fancylib: ", and that prefix becomes redundant and should be removed if those commits are split back out into the "fancylib" main repo.

I also tried to come up with another situation that would justify a more general commit message rewriting facility, and I couldn't think of any other good use cases that don't involve removing a prefix. But that doesn't mean there aren't any.

`--unannotate` is a clunky name, but I think this functionality is worth taking another look at. Maybe it could be called `--remove-prefix` ?