Re: [Q] rebase -i: turn "pick" to "edit", make no change, what should happen?

> Sean Allred <allred.sean@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Setting aside the obvious reality that an actual change here could have
> > pretty serious UX considerations for folks with muscle-memory, what in
> > your opinion would be the right thing to do? Why? Are rebase commands
> > 'shortcuts' or are they intended to be orthogonal? Do they have designed
> > purposes?
> >
> > I'm wondering if you can tease out what the 'ideal' state looks like to
> > you, then you can identify what if anything there is to be done about
> > it.
> 
> Oh, it would be very simple.
> 
> If I say "edit", whether I made a tree change or not, I want to get
> an editor when I said "rebase --continue".  If I say "reword", I
> want to get an editor _without_ having a chance to muck with the
> tree status.  That would be the "ideal" behaviour, iow, the "mental
> model" is just "edit" gives the users a chance to edit both trees
> (by first giving control back to a shell prompt) and the log message
> (by opening the editor upon "--continue"), while "reword" is only
> about the message so does not give shell prompt back to the user
> (unless absolutely necessary, that is.  If the "reword" were to
> conflict due to tree changes in earlier steps, it would need to give
> control back to a shell prompt to ask the user's help to resolve the
> conflict.  It is just that when there is no need to edit the tree
> otherwise, that is skipped).