Re: [PATCH] commit: refuse to amend during conflict resolution
- From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 27, 2026, 00:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CABPp-BETkvaRUvn36TxgnK4DW6agVbsiHe++FnJFhnRDfkge0A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqzey8j1gt.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 9:22 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> > "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > ... However, with the merge backend of rebase we have to > > be more careful, since it powers interactive rebases and > > - the interactive machinery internally uses `git commit --amend` for > > `squash` and `reword` directives > > - users are expected to `git commit --amend` after hitting an `edit` > > or `break` directive > > So, we need to be careful with rebase to only reject amending when doing > > conflict resolution. > > True. > > In addition, in any and all of these scenarios that lets the user > deal with conflicts in his or her working tree files and record the > result of conflict resolution in a commit, we should reject not only > "git commit --amend" but also "git commit <paths>", shouldn't we? > > It may probably be better done in a separate topic, as the guiding > principle is slightly different (i.e., "recording the conflict > resolution is about recording the state on top of the current HEAD > and never about updating the state recorded in the current HEAD" is > the theme of the current topic. "recording the conflict resolution > is always about the entire tree" is the other topic), so we may want > to leave a #leftoverbits marker here.
Oh, good callout. And later in commit.c we do disallow those, but only for the same operations we previously disallowed and amend during:
commit_style = COMMIT_PARTIAL;
if (whence != FROM_COMMIT) {
if (whence == FROM_MERGE)
die(_("cannot do a partial commit during a merge."));
else if (is_from_cherry_pick(whence))
die(_("cannot do a partial commit during a
cherry-pick."));
else if (is_from_rebase(whence))
die(_("cannot do a partial commit during a rebase."));
}The exact same additional structure could apply there, and that kind of reinforces Phillip's suggestion to factor out a helper that we can call. I did that in v2.