Re: [RESEND v2] git-rebase.txt: rewrite docu for fixup/squash (again)

From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Date: Oct 23, 2023, 17:52 UTC
Message-ID: <ZTayxB0Nm7AEyafp@ugly>
In-Reply-To: <a85c80eb-65ab-4b8c-ba94-de71516da5ef@gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>On 23/10/2023 14:00, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> +unless "fixup -c" is used. In the latter case, the message is 
>> obtained
>> +only from the "fixup -c" commit (having more than one of these is
>> +incorrect).
>
>This change is incorrect - it is perfectly fine to have more than one 
>"fixup -c" command. In that case we use the message of the commit of the 
>final "fixup -c" command.
>

i know that this is the case, see the previous thread (which i failed to link by header, cf. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231020092707.917514-1-oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de/T/#u ).

>One case where there can be multiple "fixup -c" commands is  when a 
>commit has been reworded several times via "git commit 
>--fixup=reword:<commit>" and the user runs "git rebase --autosquash"
>

a cleaner solution would be recognizing the situation and not generating these contradicting commands in the first place. of course that would be more complexity, but it would also allow catching accidental use.

of course i can go back to documenting the status quo, but it seems kind of wrong.

Show 7 quoted lines

>In the case of
>
>pick A
>fixup -C B
>
>don't we keep the authorship from A and just use the commit message from B?
>

uhm. we clearly do. that means i was given incorrect advice in https://lore.kernel.org/all/YjXRM5HiRizZ035p@ugly/T/#u (and so the thread is still looking for a resolution) ...

regards