James Nylen <[email protected]> writes:
> I don't agree that removing `--annotate` obviates the need for `--unannotate`.
>
> I responded on 1/17 with what I think is a typical and normal use case
> for that option:
Sorry, I must have missed that reply.
> - add "fancylib" as a subtree of "myprog"
> - commit to "myprog" repo: "fancylib: don't crash as much"
> - split these commits back out to "fancylib" main repo, and remove
> the "fancylib: " prefix
I can see how that would be useful.
> `--unannotate` is a clunky name, but I think this functionality is
> worth taking another look at. Maybe it could be called
> `--remove-prefix` ?
Should this really be a function of git-subtree? It seems like it would
fit better in a history-rewriting command. Wouldn't rebase -i or even
filter-branch be a better way to do this?
If there's no --annotate I don't see why git-subtree should have the
--unannotate functionality.
Again, I agree that your example is relevant, maybe even common, but I
don't necessarily think git-subtree should be in the business of
rewriting commit messages at all.
I'd appreciate more thoughts from you on this. I want to make sure we
can support your use case.
-David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
