Re: [PATCH 0/1] Teach the builtin rebase about the builtin interactive rebase

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2018, 17:48 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa7p7lmzp.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808260144570.18296@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

>> Please include this information in the commit message.  It's super
>> helpful to find this kind of information about why a patch does what
>> it does when encountering a patch later "in the wild" (in git log -S
>> output).
>
> I thought I did include the relevant part? As to the full back story: I
> was repeatedly dressed down by Junio in recent attempts to include more
> motivation in my commit messages. So I am reluctant to do as you say,
> because Junio is the BDFL here.

I do recall discouraging you from including irrelevant rant/whine in the log message a few times in the recent past, and also I do recall you never listening to me. Don't make me an excuse.

I think what Jonathan finds helpful is the other half of the story of what you did write in [1/1]. You wrote that it is no longer a shell script and needs to follow a separate calling convention. What was missing from that description that was given in [0/1] is why the original "rebase-in-c" series was done while pretending that the other effort "rebase-i-in-c" did not even exist, which made it necessary to do this change as a separate step.

And I tend to agree that it _is_ a relevant story in this case.