From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 09:24:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] builtin/history: abort reword on same message
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:
> 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