Re: Looks like --amend create commit... don't understand

> mat <matthieu.stigler@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> commits. But when looking on gitk, I see that
>> git commit blabla --amend
>>
>> does create each and every time a new commit,
>>     
>
> Yes. In Git, objects (including commits) are fundamentally immutable.
> You never modify an object, you create a new one, and usually forget
> about the old one.
>
>   
>> I mean: with git log,
>> there is only one commit, but on gitk, I see many, with the same name
>> but different revision ID....
>>     
>
> The revision ID is the sha1sum of the commit content. So, if they have
> different contents, they _must_ have different IDs.
>
> What happens is that you start with a history like
>
> A---B <- master
>
> and then try to --amend B. What happens is that you create a new B,
> say B', and let the branch you sit on point to this new one. Like:
>
> A---B
>  \
>   `-B' <- master
>
> Most of the time, B has just become unreachable: no branch contain it,
> no tag point to it, ... so you actually see
>
> A---B' <- master
>
> and it very much looks like you just modified B.
>
> Now, if you made B reachable before your commit --amend, like by
> pushing it to another repo, letting someone else pull from it, or if B
> is already part of another branch, then the situation is different.
>
> For example, if B is already part of a branch, like this:
>
>     .---- temp-branch
>     v
> A---B---C <- master
>
> If you do a checkout of temp-branch, then commit --amend, you end up
> in this situation :
>
> A---B---C <- master
>  \
>   `-B' <- temp-branch
>
> The solutions:
>
> * If you already published your commit, then don't amend it. Period.
>
> * If you want to rewrite an old commit in a branch, then read about
>   "git rebase -i", but make sure you read all the warnings about
>   rebase before you do so.
>
>