On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 11:08:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> Interesting. I can see using the original as the template for _both_, > >> or the first instead of the second. jj's split works a little > >> differently (especially with their notion of descriptions), so I can't > >> use them as a reference for the behavior. > >> > >> I suppose this is one of those "everybody has their preference" > >> things, but I think giving the message in both new commits as the > >> template gives splitters the most information available when writing > >> the message. (Of course, in my editor, I can presumably do something > >> like ":Git show -s <split-commit-ish>" if I want.) > > In other words, removing is easy, while remembering and retyping is > harder. > > When I split an existing commit, that is almost always because after > doing too many things in a single commit and the time I realize it > is when I am writing the commit message. So I would suggest to give > the same original message to both, to avoid losing information. For now I'll rework this a bit so that the editor will list all changes in the split-out commit, similar to how git-commit(1) does it. That at least makes it way easier to see what you're currently changing. I'll think about this some more though. Patrick
