Re: [BUG?] rebase -i: edit versus unmerged changes
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 23, 2013, 12:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0nspPEaA3BLjgV6Qv2UgXRbDft1d6SmRCiVNJoxpqLFwg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vehf76uai.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes: > >> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >> >>> I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone >>> attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps >>> that we can start working on? >> >> Is there any deadline or migration path needed? Depending on the >> design, it might be possible to do without backward-incompatible >> changes, meaning the migration path is "whatever someone feels like >> implementing first lands first". > > FWIW, I am not convinced yet why we would even want "git continue" > in the first place, so I won't be the one who would be suggesting a > migration path.
Okay, I'm confused now. You were the one who suggested a unified "git continue" in the first place, if my memory serves me right. Why are you doubting it now?