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

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2023, 09:22 UTC
Message-ID: <b2b76344-11b7-4f21-8658-f18ffcca2dea@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZTayxB0Nm7AEyafp@ugly>

Hi Oswald

On 23/10/2023 18:52, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

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

Ah, I see Marc has already raised this point.

Show 10 quoted lines

>> 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.

I agree there is an argument for improving the implementation of --autosquash but until we do I think it is counterproductive to change the documentation like this as it will cause users to wonder why "rebase --autosquash" generates a todo list that is incorrect according to the documentation.

Show 11 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) ...

I'll take a look at that thread and comment there.

I do think it is a good idea to document where the authorship of a rebased commit comes from.

Best Wishes

Phillip