From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:11:14 GMT
Subject: Re: RFC - "git editlog" feature for fixing up local commit messages
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

>> 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