From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: squashing patches Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20080610010033.GB16050@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080607220101.GM31040@leksak.fem-net> <20080609114550.GA8079@leksak.fem-net> <7vprqqh06j.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080609204327.GD8079@leksak.fem-net> <20080609205321.GA15912@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080609235733.GG8079@leksak.fem-net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Joerg Sommer , Daniel Barkalow , Christian Couder To: Stephan Beyer X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 10 03:01:59 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K5sFI-0006Fm-Sy for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:01:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754682AbYFJBAh (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:00:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754659AbYFJBAh (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:00:37 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3825 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754006AbYFJBAg (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:00:36 -0400 Received: (qmail 25198 invoked by uid 111); 10 Jun 2008 01:00:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:00:34 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:00:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080609235733.GG8079@leksak.fem-net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 01:57:33AM +0200, Stephan Beyer wrote: > > I am just watching this from the sidelines, but it seems to me that you > > are best off creating the directives as modular and orthogonal as > > possible. It is very simple to create "pick $1; edit" from "pick --edit > > $1" later, but it is more difficult to go the other way around. > > Perhaps it is just me, but isn't "pick X ; edit" > more modular and orthogonal than "pick --edit X"? ;-) Sorry, I chose a bad phrase. When I said "create X from Y", I meant "when the user gives you Y, you can produce the canonical X". Not "once we have the canonical Y, you can create X out of it." So I appear to have said the exact opposite of what I meant. :) > But yes, the "pick --edit X" => "pick X ; edit" conversion seems easier. Exactly. -Peff