Re: RFC - "git editlog" feature for fixing up local commit messages
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 30, 2010, 23:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100330231114.GA11591@progeny.tock>
- In-Reply-To
- <32541b131003301136h4454f02cyd5a94d746e844a8d@mail.gmail.com>
Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Michael J Gruber
Show 7 quoted lines
>> I think the OP's point was that filter-branch is better at keeping >> merges in place; I'm not sure if this is true when rebase-i is used with >> reword only. > > I've never actually tried the "--preserve-merges" option to git rebase > -i, but the description sounds as if it's supposed to not have this > problem. Can anyone confirm/deny?
preserve-merges is in bad shape. I’d recommend not using it unless you’re willing to hack on it.
Example issues: interacts poorly with merge.log, reordering commits produces very confusing results.
Example of why it is not necessarily the tool for all seasons: requires a diff+apply cycle. If you are tracking large or binary files or amending a very old commit message, it makes more sense to avoid this overhead. See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/143426 for example.
Hope that helps, Jonathan