Show 30 quoted lines
> This feature looks like it's coming together pretty well imo. I just have
> one observation I want to comment on:
>
> I noticed that 'git history squash <range>', when --reedit-message is
> omitted, will ignore any amend! message in the range that targets the
> first folded commit.
>
> On the surface, this makes sense. The feature is pretty explicit that
> it will faithfully stick with the first commit's message, unless
> modified by use of --reedit-message.
>
> However, this edge case is a little surprising, given that
> 'git history squash' seems to be aware of the semantics of fixup!, amend!,
> and squash! messages whether --reedit-message was given or not. For instance,
> the default command notices when the range contains a squash! commit whose
> target is elsewhere (a useful feature). It seems consistent then, that the
> default command would incorporate an amend! it is aware of when placing the
> "first commit's" message in the resulting squash. This seems useful to me
> as well.
>
> At the same time, I can understand why the current implementation does
> what it does. So I'm not entirely sure what the correct answer is here.
>
> I'll mention as well that I really like the decisions made for how this
> command handles squashing a bunch of related fixups. This "fixup
> consolidation" is a use-case that this command may steal away from rebase
> for me. And the way a final amend! is handled in this case is what got me
> thinking about it in the general case.
>
> Thanks for the work on this topic!
Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>