Re: RFC - "git editlog" feature for fixing up local commit messages

From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2010, 18:36 UTC
Message-ID: <32541b131003301136h4454f02cyd5a94d746e844a8d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BB1BBDA.2050102@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Avery Pennarun venit, vidit, dixit 29.03.2010 22:14:
>> A further option would be to extend git-rebase--interactive.sh (yes,
>> it's just a shell script) to take an option that makes a given commit
>> (or commits) 'reword' by default instead of 'pick'.  And maybe another
>> option to make git-rebase--interactive.sh not actually pop up an
>> editor before it starts running.  Then your editcommit script could
>> just be a thin wrapper around rebase with those options.
>
> 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?

Thanks,

Avery