Re: git-replay/git-history lose notes

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 5, 2026, 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <975a0661-945c-4a03-bad1-14db929c8d97@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CDtihFytS1dhfZPDA7jUL3bvAt=zYOH9Wi=naEoC58B1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 05/08/2026 12:39, D. Ben Knoble wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:27 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 04:06:38PM -0400, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I don't think this has been reported or discussed yet, though my
>>> apologies if my search skills just didn't find it.
>>>
>>> It looks like git-replay and git-history will drop notes (or rather,
>>> not carry them over) when rewriting history. I've seen this both with
>>> "git replay --onto=… …" and "git history fixup" recently, though I
>>> suspect it affects all the modes.
> [snip]
>>
>> This somehow rings a bell -- wasn't there a recent discussion about this
>> on the mailing list somewhere? I might be confusing it with a different
>> command though that's loosing notes.
> 
> Yeah, that rings a bell for me, too. A peculiar rebase bug, I think?

Yes, there was a note-related rebase bug reported recently

Show 11 quoted lines

>>> Are notes out of scope for replay and history, or is this just a
>>> "nobody's gotten around to it yet"?
>>
>> For git-replay(1) I'm not too sure, as I consider that command to be
>> part of plumbing. But git-history(1) is a user-facing command, and
>> because of that I think it should handle notes automatically for the
>> user.
> 
> I can't speak for replay, although I do use it as a convenient "rebase
> a bunch of local branches that have conflicts without checking each
> one out"… but the history part makes sense to me.

I think having a command line option for replay to turn on note copying would be useful (and as a plumbing command we may not want the behavior changing via config). The implementation will probably want to live in the shared code anyway.

>> So for me at least it's more of a "nobody's gotten around to it yet"
>> scenario. I've created an issue in our GitLab issue tracker so that we
>> can maybe pick this up in the next release cycle. But I won't complain
>> if anybody beats us to it :)

I agree adding it for history makes sense.

Thanks

Phillip