From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 18:42:10 GMT
Subject: Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors
Message-ID: <FAE9116880074D6FA421942CCAEC368F@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Bzcwfvhc9dQ2EehmAJ+kGwC5VHL4d+4Z-GfmM6e2+3wg@mail.gmail.com>

From: "Duy Nguyen" <pclouds@gmail.com>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>> It would be a totally different matter, of course, if you used the
>> branches I publish via my GitHub repository, added fixup! and squash!
>> commits, published the result to a public repository and then told me to
>> pull from there, that would make things easier. We could even introduce a
>> reword! construct, to make the review of the suggested edits of the 
>> commit
>> message easier.
>
> On the topic of fixup and squash and everything. Is anyone else
> annoyed that the commit title is taken for fixup!, squash!
> instructions? After you have added a few of them, "git log --oneline"
> becomes useless. All you see is "fixup! A", "fixup! A", "fixup! B",
> "fixup! A".
>
> Would it be better to let the user control the title? We still need
> the cue "fixup!", "squash!"... at the beginning of the title, but the
> original commit reference is appended at the end, like s-o-b lines.

In the same vein, I always want,with my workflow, to use "fixup! 
<short_sha1>".

This would be to save trying to retype the title correctly, and simply use 
the abbreviated sha1, which would nicely allow an extra short summaty of 
what the fixup is about.

Philip