Re: git-rebase-walk

[Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>]

On 02/10/2026 07:46, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 05:51:58PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>
>> My script I use it in shadow-utils and in the Linux man-pages project,
>> and is in use today.  I was wondering if there was interest in
>> integrating it to git(1).
> 
> I guess the answer is "maybe". The fact that multiple folks have solved
> similar issues over the course of many years is an indicator that the
> funcitonality may be more generally useful. But it probably shouldn't be
> a separate script, so if we wanted to integrate it I'd think the best
> way forward would be to integrate it into git-rebase(1) directly.

I agree that would be the best way forward. Adding an "--incremental", 
or "--progressive" option to rebase would be useful I think. For ease of 
use, I have a strong preference for an implementation where "rebase 
--continue" handles rebasing onto progressively more recent bases, 
rather than the multi shot approach where the user has to run "git 
rebase --incremental" multiple times. Having a multi-shot approach makes 
it much less clear when we've successfully rebased onto the desired base.

Thanks

Phillip


> That's of course more involved though, so I understand in case you're
> not interested in doing that.
> 
>> If not, I will likely provide it in the man-pages repository as a help
>> tool (which might end up packed by distros as part of manpages-utils).
>> Is that okay to you?  (I ask mainly because it's using the git-
>> namespace for commands, so you should at lease be aware of it.)
> 
> I mean overall this is our primary way of extension, by picking up
> utilities that have the "git-" prefix. So arguably you don't have to ask
> us for permission to do that.
> 
> Whether it makes sense to distribute such a tool as part of
> manpages-utils is a different question, and one where I myself am of a
> split mind. But that feels more like a question for distributors rather
> than for us in the Git project.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Patrick