Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] doc/git-commit: add documentation for fixup=[amend|reword] options

[Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 03:48, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> no paths, i.e.  If you have --fixup=amend, you can do
> >>
> >>     $ git commit --fixup=amend:<original> --only
> >>
> >> and you do not need --fixup=reword:<original> at all, no?
> >>
> >
> > Maybe as an alternative User interface, we can remove the
> > `--fixup=reword:<original>`.
> >
> > But for this patch, as we have kept separate suboption
> > `--fixup=reword:<original>` , so if now we do
> > `--fixup=amend:<original> --only` then it will return the error as
> > below :
> > fatal: No paths with --include/--only does not make sense.
>
> Yes, but it is something we can easily fix, just like we made
> "--only" without any pathname to work with "--amend" (or with
> "--allow-empty").
>

Agree.

> The reason I brought it up was not because "--fixup=reword" is not
> needed as a short-hand for "--only --fixup=amend" (but thinking
> about it again, I do not think it is so bad), but primarily in
> response to "would it be easier for users if we had reword! insn in
> addition to amend! verb in the todo file?" that was raised earlier
> in the thread.  If we position "--fixup=reword" as a short-hand
> and/or a syntax sugar for "--fixup=amend" and advertise it as such
> sufficiently to educate users, it would be easier for users to
> understand why they both result in "amend!".

Okay, so now if it's Ok to keep the short-hand "--fixup=reword" ? then
I think making the documentation more clear would be sufficient to
serve it to the users ?
Otherwise if the votes are more that the user will get confused as
both results in "amend!", then should we change this patch to "--only
--fixup=amend" ?