From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2085122CBD9 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 07:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765266823; cv=none; b=HXWJHJms6fAgqatbyG6sGnTXlIrfAE9o7XziCbhykdJRkdS7CTeBX9RTsvXnBRXMBJ8zcSR85NO8Q622gaMbQW7RjjgOfHXW5CWq3s965jU+sFSqAZrHvxG7mGqogioB89VNmFqifeQU8SIxswmOqhPdZSPnShzIyoGPriNQd1g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765266823; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GdLcSrXTV0EwhyKauVNlwZoFPEUwUQQ6GzBz/NKOSqk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EmurloIBQXxe+aoh40JWEUi6Cw0ojdT0ClCuREEGfNQCRTiP+7LMqZiwuKuOR7rdPnSo5in6/anx1ZSkAppAoVykUgabBZAqkHbymfvC7ba4P95H4CX8LDOZylDj1W5tAJ4K3TsQ093oxbSz9fqpKWBh0xucKx053jo6FlSjir4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=AVTAmWW6; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=D4gvJgco; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="AVTAmWW6"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="D4gvJgco" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55AB0EC0599; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 02:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Dec 2025 02:53:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1765266820; x=1765353220; bh=hrZgtwhcWIGKbMleDtTU8H1d10D+fKSxJ5pmBmaYbqM=; b= AVTAmWW6LIy1pFW/pqCdgqsnqwVx8xeQ/WY0ds77acLGiXjSXd6+461uRCBkiUPS lvTlHw+kLRelEctcBB8RgZ+siABuPYFdfghLny0TBx3IoobDWB9kgHqgzmPRRxNs 5N4bY1jf8Q2LBUJCj6p9roevjSdujPAWw+m9hXRp6oC2QNDuB/b/UdUM7vN0p3+8 zWnkYiz5u396HmJyIZym/1RGKh0qJBR0s6TgycOP9NMWudCGsBVuRu5am0rMmOM/ rHa69FV0mfkv8nwxtsrRrxOHu0dYac57rckwYFjA6PwhZ+vfmNAWSVkA+xkScCgd 9FaJSv8RuhuSACPyccfMRw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1765266820; x= 1765353220; bh=hrZgtwhcWIGKbMleDtTU8H1d10D+fKSxJ5pmBmaYbqM=; b=D 4gvJgco0x2dHoMWyjnxW3PeTkxmYYHLZJTB9A5xXM2L4KSwviTvzcfjmS1aS1v2X 9A1JmPSy+wgiRSZvHNwlx6GyWXllGo5ilHu7lPdRU2WFX3L8/UTmIzd8aQ+eRxxe sc+xxl/uTTnyEPkpx3wQvZKQiVL0dqJZxI2bwtHpByYHlGEyo2ZfTQo1Y4YGy/F6 K7fTApJ3z1mQkHtAdZwUjJ8WAk3+xHw2J4Rch2bipYKQTwh0lfRawecu1dpA9iQc MCn/VGAnmO3QM9SZfTO1OXr0LB94GfXCMeiJ5Z05THesVAFX/OHNu71FqiCWcxHe OXrI9uMGF1RK4+vZtO0QA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdduledtudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgt khcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epvdefjeeitdetleehieetkeevfedtfedvheekvdevteffvdevveejjeelgeetvdfgnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkh hsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddtpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphht thhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougduvdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoh epghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhk rddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgrrhhtihhnvhhonhiisehgmh grihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvfihrvghnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghp thhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehkrhhishhtoh hffhgvrhhhrghughhssggrkhhksehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegs vghnrdhknhhosghlvgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjnhdrrghvihhlrg esfhhrvggvrdhfrh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 02:53:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 1276e968 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2025 07:53:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 08:53:33 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Elijah Newren Cc: Junio C Hamano , Phillip Wood , git@vger.kernel.org, "D. Ben Knoble" , Sergey Organov , =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA , Martin von Zweigbergk , Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Karthik Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] Introduce git-history(1) command for easy history editing Message-ID: References: <3fb47b15-ed43-4137-95f8-cee97ab5e44c@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 12:49:04AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 10:50 AM Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > Consequently I'm leaning more into the direction of doing nothing. It's > > not really clear to me that this is a bug, and we still can introduce a > > flag in the future that opts into the behaviour of rewriting relevant > > branches. That behaviour certainly can be useful, but I'd claim that > > it would be rather surprising to the user if that was the default. > > Well, as I stated above, this is basically copying what I view as the > fundamental design mistake of git-rebase. The many other points of > feedback I had on this series (e.g. extended headers, reusing replay's > walking, etc.) are things I could easily negotiate on; this one > bothers me much, much more. To me, it ruins the command and makes me > feel it is unsuitable for inclusion in git; this is, after all, the > kind of thing that made me decide to write yet another command to > workaround such a flaw. If the series is merged with this behavior, > I'm going to be in the awkward position of feeling I need to actively > recommend against its usage unless _and until_ we either > > (a) check that a commit is only part of one branch before proceeding, > (b) always require the user to specify with a flag how to handle > commits that happen to be part of multiple branches (even when a > commit only happens to be part of one branch, in order to allow us to > not bother checking whether it's part of more), > or > (c) rewrite all branches that contain the given commit by default > (with an option to only rewrite the current one). > > That said, obviously the choice of whether the series is merged isn't > up to me. And maybe I'm in the minority, and others don't care about > this issue at all. But it's how I feel about it. I guess it's a matter of workflows and tastes, and there's never going to be the one correct way of doing things. I don't think (b) is a good option as it makes things more complex even for the simplest cases. But I wouldn't be opposed to a combination of (a) and (b) if we can implement (a) efficiently. Do we already have logic like this in git-replay(1)? Patrick