Re: Ability to edit message from git rebase --interactive.
- From
Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 10, 2009, 19:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <b4087cc50904101204l783acb9lb40b7abfc8573a62@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <fabb9a1e0904101154o6b4759ddk879bcdabcc03add6@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 13:54, Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 20:50, Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com> wrote: >> Also, I still like the idea of being able to write: >> >> git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^ >> >> and then have the rebase setup and started for me. > > Suggested before and shot down with "how would that work in the light > of merges?
I guess that depends on what Johannes Schindelin said:
> FWIW I planned to split my rebase-i-p patch series into two parts: the first part adding a few commands, and the second part actually making it possible to rebase interactively _and_ preserving merges. (So far, if you used -p, you better did not reorder or delete any lines.)
Unfortunately, I've never thought about it, so I don't fully understand the implications. However, why should someone with a simpler scenario have to suffer because of someone else's hypothetical nightmare? ;-D
On a separate note:
To clarify, I was specifying two commits that I want to amend (HEAD~5 and HEAD^). For instance, this specifies 3 commits:
git commit --amend HEAD~5 HEAD^ HEAD~10
However, I'm sure it would also be useful to allow ranges as well. Should the dot notation (THIS..THAT) be reappropriated? I ask, because it doesn't really mean range.