undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWorldMaker6mo ago0 comments

My pattern in a case like that is often to start a commit named "WIP thing I'm doing" and `commit --amend` each snapshot, updating the commit message as it starts to come together. `commit --amend` is nicer/gentler than `rebase`, most of the time.

Though there are also times I don't mind working in a very dirty worktree and `git add -p` (interactive add that also makes it easy to stage only parts of files) pieces only once they feel complete and start to tell a story. (And in those cases I may use a lot of `git stash -u` and `git stash pop` snapshots, too, especially if I need to switch branches in that worktree.)

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ptx6mo ago· 2 in thread

Hmm, I may have actually solved my problem. I think what I mostly want to do is this, if I'm working on the "feature-1" branch based on "main":

  $ git checkout feature-1
  $ git reset main
  $ git commit -a -C feature-1@{1}

This squashes all the changes and keeps the date and and message of the final commit on the branch.

Weirdly, although the "-c" and "-C" flags for the fixup operations sound like they should correspond to the same flags for "git commit", which grabs the date along with the message from the specified commit, the fixup flags only affect the message and not the date.

It would be nice if it worked the same for rebase as for commit. Then "fixup -C" would essentially correspond to Mercurial's "fold".

WorldMakerOP6mo ago

Ah, yeah, that use of `git reset --soft` is how many places do squash merging, so that makes sense. You may want to make sure to include the `--soft` flag explicitly just as a precaution.

Also yeah, I would expect the fixup -c and -C flags to be more aligned with commit in a rebase.

17186274406mo ago

git fixup doesn't take the old commit message either, so I would be not so surprised that it doesn't take the commit message. It is really for preparing to do rebase fixup to the older commit.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse