Re: [PATCH 3/3] commit: add an option the reword HEAD

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2020, 16:58 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqft77glhn.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <95cc6fb2-d1bc-11de-febe-c2b5c78a6850@gmail.com>

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

>>> I don't think this patch series stops us implementing something for rebase but
>>> it would mean we couldn't use the name reword! unless we allow `git commit
>>> --reword` to take an optional commit which I'm not that keen on.
>>>
>>> What do you think to an alternative name?
>> I am really worried that the proliferation of confusingly similar
>> options
>> will increase Git's reputation for being awfully hard to use.
> ...
> The reason I'm not keen on having --amend or --reword take an optional
> commit is that I think it is confusing as it means sometimes that
> option creates a new commit and sometimes it modifies the last commit 
> furthermore passing --reword=HEAD would not reword HEAD but creates a
> reword! commit.

Adding just another subjective view to the two already presented, but I think --reword, as presented by Phillip, sits better next to the existing --amend.

I wonder if we can extend the existing "--fixup <commit>" (and perhaps "--squash <commit>") to make them work better with the workflow Dscho envisions? Explicit presence of the "-e" option might be a way to tell the command to behave differently from the current "--fixup" and to leave a mark that is different from 'fixup!" in the resulting commit to affect the later "rebase" step as well, for example.