Open chshersh opened 4 years ago
Oh, I like that!
Probably, just the hit edit
name will be enough? Or you think that it can have some other semantic meaning?
I like hit edit
because it's short 🙂 But it could be a bit ambiguous... On the one hand, we might to add more commands to hit
like hit edit issue
, hit edit commit
, hit edit history
. On the other hand, we don't have a goal to implement a nice wrapper around git
with more readable commands, the goal is to support the workflow, so adding a lot more commands we need to test might not be a good idea. However, we do use git rebase -i
a lot! I just don't find rebase -i
readable enough for this purposes... Alternative naming proposals:
hit rewrite
hit history
hit retro
hit time-travel
Often enough we're using the following command:
to modify a set of commits locally. I have few ideas regarding introducing a similar command to
hit
:hit edit-history 3
(probably with better name) which is equivalent to the above command.master
and current branch and finding common last parent. Maybe the command can be less smarter and just show be a combination ofgit log + git rebase
...Any thoughts? Does it make sense to introduce a command like this or it's not worth the complecity and maintenance burden?