Closed Stebalien closed 1 year ago
Thanks, this looks good to me. I think it's okay to rename those commands, since these have always needed improving, and we're far from a 1.0.
Would you mind updating the changelog too? Or I can take care of that if you prefer.
Done. In general, would prefer commit amendments (to avoid separate commits addressing reviews) or additional commits (as I did here)?
Thanks.
For simple changes like this, I think adding commits makes for easier review; then the branch can squash-merged. For changesets that squash-merging would be inappropriate for, maybe a good protocol would be to make additional commits to address feedback, then rebase with fixup commits and force-push before merging, to make for a cleaner commit history. But it's not easy to give a general rule for when that would be worth the extra effort, and there's always --first-parent
for git logs, so...
@Stebalien Thank you!
Refactor
ement-room-image-show
toement-room-image-show
andement-room-image-show-mouse
. Ditto for-image-scale-
. Then bind RET/M-RET to these new commands.NOTE: this renames
ement-room-image-show
toement-room-image-show-mouse
for consistency (breaking).If you'd like to avoid the breaking change, I can rename these functions to
-at-point
and-mouse
, and turn the existing versions into aliases.