Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] builtin/history: abort reword on same message
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 10, 2026, 09:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <56beb82a-9d6b-45d9-b795-c66e945c03db@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq4ijbsn2m.fsf@gitster.g>
On 09/06/2026 17:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Pablo
>>
>> On 09/06/2026 11:42, Pablo Sabater wrote:
>>> static int commit_tree_ext(struct repository *repo,
>>> @@ -135,6 +136,13 @@ static int commit_tree_ext(struct repository *repo,
>>> original_body, action, &commit_message);
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> goto out;
>>> +
>>> + if (flags & COMMIT_TREE_ABORT_ON_SAME_MESSAGE &&
>>> + !strcmp(original_body, commit_message.buf)) {
>>> + fprintf(stderr, _("Message unchanged, aborting reword.\n"));
>>> + ret = 1;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>
>> I wonder if we should check that the committer identity is unchanged as
>> well in case anyone is using this to fix commits after committing with
>> the wrong identity.
>>
>> Aborting when the message and committer identity are unchanged seems
>> like a good idea.
>
> I am not sure why it would be a good idea. The user wanted to make
> the commit have this message, and the commit ended up having the
> same message as the user gave. That message may have been identical
> to what the commit originally had, or it may be different. Why is
> the former an abort-worthy event? A simple note, I may understand,
> but aborting with an error message?What I really meant was skipping rewriting history makes sense, I don't have a strong opinion on the exit code. My feeling is that some kind of message saying we haven't rewritten anything probably a good idea.
Thanks
Phillip