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.
