You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that I have bound keys to move_commit in both directions, I find that pressing those keys repeatedly does something quite non-intuitive: it moves a different commit with each keypress. Instead, I expect and want to move the originally selected commit many times.
Preferred solution
Suppose you have commits:
A
B
C
D
and suppose you select B then invoke move_commit with down: true. The postcondition of that operation ought to be that the commits are in the order below, with B selected:
A
C
B
D
Alternatives
An alternative is to let a user create macros as described here. I believe that's cumbersome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In addition to the move_commit treatment above, there's the analogous treatment of squash_commit. If I squash A with B producing C, I proposed to wind up with C selected.
tomngo
changed the title
Request: On move_commit, update which commit is selected
Request: On move_commit and squash_commit, update which commit is selected
May 16, 2019
Today, move_commit behaves as I expect (it matches the Preferred Solution above). Unless I am losing it, it was not behaving that way when I posted this enhancement request. I was on Build 1107 both times. Perhaps there's some circumstance that accounts for the difference, but I haven't pinpointed it.
Problem description
Now that I have bound keys to
move_commit
in both directions, I find that pressing those keys repeatedly does something quite non-intuitive: it moves a different commit with each keypress. Instead, I expect and want to move the originally selected commit many times.Preferred solution
Suppose you have commits:
A
B
C
D
and suppose you select B then invoke
move_commit
withdown: true
. The postcondition of that operation ought to be that the commits are in the order below, with B selected:A
C
B
D
Alternatives
An alternative is to let a user create macros as described here. I believe that's cumbersome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: