All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Pablo Sabater <pabloosabaterr@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org,  Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>,
	 Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] builtin/history: abort reword on unchanged message
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:21:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqtsrbsvcm.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN5EUNRW3gyLKGC7x5BBMTNKtunoQks9AaXJse4PHvCziRF87A@mail.gmail.com> (Pablo Sabater's message of "Tue, 9 Jun 2026 12:14:05 +0200")

Pablo Sabater <pabloosabaterr@gmail.com> writes:

> True, after reading it, history being more costly or the in memory are
> not good args.

And no argument, including that history is new, is a good excuse to
make these three things inconsistent, period.

One of the patches in your updated iteration claims

    When using `git history reword <commit>` if the new message is the same
    as the original, it continues and rewrites the history when nothing
    changed.

    `git commit --amend` and `git rebase -i` with reword share this behavior
    and it is wrong as well, but changing them breaks what people are used
    to. Take the opportunity of `git history` being a new command and handle
    it correctly from the start.

and I think this is a totally wrong attitude to go about this.

I may have said that it may have been a better default to try hard
to avoid making a change that is a no-op, other than that it changes
committer timestamp, while making the current "always create a new
commit object" behaviour optionally available, for these three
commands, and cited that the behaviour of 'pick' in 'rebase -i' that
avoids unnecessary rewrite as an example of a good practice.

But I do not think the existing behaviour to always rewrite is
*wrong* at all.  It may be wrong not to offer the other choice of
pretending no content change means no commit object change, but that
is a different story.

I also do not think *aborting* only when the message happens to be
the same is a valid mode of operation at all.

The most sensible first step, I think, is to add a new command line
option to "git history" (which will gain more history editing
subcommands) that tells the command to leave the original history
as-is when the only change rewriting commits would make would be to
the committer ident or timestamp information.  If in a future a new
replace-tree subcommand is added, e.g. if

    $ git history replace-tree HEAD~20 HEAD~27^{tree}

were a command to rewrite the history in such a way that 20th direct
ancestor of the current HEAD had a tree object HEAD~27^{tree}, by
derfault the command _should_ rewrite HEAD~10 and everything that
has it as an ancestor.  With the "--avoid-unnecsssary-rewrite"
optimization feature on, however, it may silently become a no-op
when HEAD~27^{tree} happened to be the same tree as HEAD~20^{tree}
so the only difference between rewritten and original HEAD~20 would
be when that commit object was created and by whom.

And give the same option to "rebase -i" or "commit --amend".  We can
discuss, educate the users, and flip the default at a major version
boundary, if the "avoid unnecessary rewrite" truly turns out to be a
better default (right now it is merely our speculation, and we do
not even know if the current behaviour is a worse default).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-06-09 13:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-07 20:07 [PATCH RFC 0/2] builtin/history: change git history reword behavior and feedback Pablo Sabater
2026-06-07 20:07 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] builtin/history: abort reword on unchanged message Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08  9:30   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-06-08 10:52     ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08 12:16   ` Junio C Hamano
2026-06-08 16:44     ` Ben Knoble
2026-06-09 10:03       ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 10:14     ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 10:30       ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-06-09 13:21       ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-06-09 15:51         ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08 16:37   ` Ben Knoble
2026-06-09  9:59     ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-07 20:07 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] builtin/history: print feedback after successful reword Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08  9:30   ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-06-08 10:45     ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08 12:16   ` Junio C Hamano
2026-06-08 13:23     ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-08 16:47       ` Ben Knoble
2026-06-09 10:42 ` [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] builtin/history: abort reword on same message Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 10:42   ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] builtin/history: refactor function signature Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 10:42   ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] builtin/history: abort reword on same message Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 13:25     ` Phillip Wood
2026-06-09 16:20       ` Junio C Hamano
2026-06-09 17:12         ` Pablo Sabater
2026-06-09 18:02         ` Justin Tobler

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqtsrbsvcm.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com \
    --cc=pabloosabaterr@gmail.com \
    --cc=ps@pks.im \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.