From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125131F9FD for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232208AbhBRTdD (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:33:03 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56466 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230505AbhBRT1Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:27:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CC199277; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=hgaXcpD2MoqX7fXghI58ZoXj33I=; b=KfenjL X5/xsMDZfPqNUWXBgegaDqnG1CQLZKqCV82TqDNLqq88XRAM18vZXKjH0B9CesiP lBq6rOwH/mIaFkfeHkMuZ3gc81H/wPi/smE4YH5sy+Df6EoAE+pmyxnXUXtC8BcM 9HL6tKJuHbtrVqayoLSkRkQkXxF+Jd0u9mb0U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=M9gcKVtb/80CUL6gDyWSLPfuhcwXQndc 8dcC8iCPMeJIkRVd1lpjbk9i4Ll6MJW/QG6cHQO81zarF33r2mKPWpyF3b7lIKS9 dS/+SY/G7SwITxmpi3hPdoLCw74nYQoOQ/nLigU+vkF9JD+FRFNFAP/ORHAL/lGv Sj1aBe6CsqQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C95E99276; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDA9F99275; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Charvi Mendiratta Cc: git , Christian Couder , Phillip Wood , Christian Couder , Phillip Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] t7500: add tests for --fixup[amend|reword] options References: <20210217072904.16257-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20210217073725.16656-1-charvi077@gmail.com> <20210217073725.16656-4-charvi077@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:26:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Charvi Mendiratta's message of "Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:45:34 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3ABC0E72-721F-11EB-A1B5-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Charvi Mendiratta writes: >> > +test_expect_success '--fixup=reword: -F give error message' ' >> > + echo "fatal: Only one of -c/-C/-F/--fixup can be used." >expect && >> > + test_must_fail git commit --fixup=reword:HEAD~ -F msg 2>actual && >> > + test_cmp expect actual >> > +' >> >> Why? If you can use -m msg, you should be able to use -F msgfile, >> too, no? > > Earlier I was thinking to let the `--fixup=amend:` use the same options as of > current `--fixup=` . But yes I agree that there should be -F option > also with `amend` > and `reword`. Hmph, I was actually imagining the opposite---a context that does not want to take -c/-C/-F would not want to take -m, either. Why is -m so special, and a lot more importantly, what would a user want to achieve by using "-m more-text" combined with this "--fixup=reword:" or "--fixup=amend:" feature?