Re: [PATCH v3] git-rebase.txt: rewrite docu for fixup/squash (again)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 27, 2023, 23:34 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh6mbod1b.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <56e3e974-a027-439f-871d-c7fbae65a04e@xiplink.com>

Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> writes:

> I do not think this kind of editorializing belongs in the commit's
> message, but this likely isn't the first commit message that expresses
> an opinion.

Thanks for saying this.

Show 14 quoted lines

> I like the overall phrasing here.
>
> But I think you should remove the "but this should not be relied upon"
> phrase.  This reads as if Git's current behaviour is undefined, which
> most definitely is not true.
>
> Even changing this to something like "but this might change in the
> future" is unhelpful.  Everything in Git is subject to change over a
> long-enough time span, so the same could be said about every aspect of
> Git.
>
> Until the behaviour actually changes, it's perfectly fine for people
> to use multiple "fixup -c" commands.  There's no reason to scare them
> off of it.

And that would simplify the description to make it easier to follow by readers who are *not* involved in the development process.

Show 12 quoted lines

>
>> +If the resulting commit message is a concatenation of multiple messages,
>> +an editor is opened allowing you to edit it. This is also the case for a
>> +message obtained via "fixup -c", while using "fixup -C" instead skips
>> +the editor; this is analogous to the behavior of `git commit`.
>> +The author information (including date/timestamp) always comes from
>> +the first commit; this is the case even if "fixup -c/-C" is used,
>> +contrary to what `git commit` does.
>
> This phrasing is much better.
>
> Thanks for putting up with my pedantry!

Thanks for a good review. I guess the patch is very near the finish line?