Hi Peff,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > > However, I could imagine that we actually want this to be more
> > > extensible. After all, all you are doing is to introduce a new
> > > rebase -i command that does nothing e
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > However, I could imagine that we actually want this to be more extensible.
>> > After all, all you are doing is to introduce a new rebase -i command that
>> > does nothing else than shelling out to a comman
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > However, I could imagine that we actually want this to be more extensible.
>> > After all, all you are doing is to introduce a new rebase -i command that
>> > does nothing else
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Chris Packham wrote:
>
>> This is similar to the existing "reword" command in that it can be used
>> to update the commit message the difference is that the editor presented
>> to the user for the commit
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:08:48AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > However, I could imagine that we actually want this to be more extensible.
> > After all, all you are doing is to introduce a new rebase -i command that
> > does nothing else than shelling out to a command.
>
> Yup, I tend to agr
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> ... my Git garden shears [*1*] (essentially, what
> git rebase --interactive --preserve-merges *should* have been).
Any plan to fold it into "git rebase -i" as a new (improved) mode of
operation, by the way?
> However, I could imagine that we actually want this to
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > ... my Git garden shears [*1*] (essentially, what
> > git rebase --interactive --preserve-merges *should* have been).
>
> Any plan to fold it into "git rebase -i" as a new (improved) mode of
> operation, by
Chris Packham writes:
> This is similar to the existing "reword" command in that it can be used
> to update the commit message the difference is that the editor presented
> to the user for the commit. It provides a useful shorthand for "exec git
> commit --amend --no-edit -s"
Hmm, what should th
Hi Chris,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> I can understand how this "sign" command helps you. I myself wished for
> new commands when working on my Git garden shears [*1*] (essentially, what
> git rebase --interactive --preserve-merges *should* have been).
And of course I forgot
Hi Chris,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Chris Packham wrote:
> This is similar to the existing "reword" command in that it can be used
> to update the commit message the difference is that the editor presented
> to the user for the commit. It provides a useful shorthand for "exec git
> commit --amend --no-
This is similar to the existing "reword" command in that it can be used
to update the commit message the difference is that the editor presented
to the user for the commit. It provides a useful shorthand for "exec git
commit --amend --no-edit -s"
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham
---
Hi,
At $dayjob w
11 matches
Mail list logo
