Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] history: add squash subcommand to fold a range

From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 7, 2026, 18:31 UTC
Message-ID: <CAHwyqnUDJ05hrS3BeFR1b9Ei=VWCT+gD2AGJveL+Vq+5bg0PSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf9384e9-3707-4d34-82bf-cfda84a17d94@gmail.com>

> We don't have the luxury of being able to easily roll-back features that
> have been merged and are being used in the wider world so need to have a
> considered approach to designing new features.

This is fair and an important point since Git is distributed as a binary. However, I still think there is a balance to be struck.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Hardly anyone who is employed to work on git is given work time to
> review random patches that are not of direct interest to their employer,
>    the reviews are mostly from people volunteering their own time.
> Therefore comparing it to what happens inside a company where it is part
> of the job to review others code is not a realistic comparison.

This is very fair and of course makes a lot of sense!

Show 8 quoted lines

> > When you reroll too fast without waiting for reviewers, it
> > invalidates almost-done-but-yet-unpublished reviews.  If you
> > repeatedly do so, it exacerbates the problem by discouraging
> > reviewers from even looking at your topic, as they wonder if a
> > rapid reroll will invalidate their reviews yet again.
>
> Yes, I've definitely waited a couple of days to see if another iteration
> is going to appear before starting a review.

This puts us on a "resonant frequency" since I often finish the work and then wait a day before sending out. I think there are definitely cases where rerolling quicker would also be beneficial.

> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/ddd0160c-7f4c-41c7-855f-58288db00050@gmail.com

My main opposition to this is two-fold:

1. I don't see the value that the new format would bring; I don't
understand that the proposed format is better than the current one (I
am not sure if I actually understand the new format at all), and Junio
expressed a similar sentiment earlier so I have been counting on this
discussion dying down organically.

2. It's consistent to keep them the same, which is in itself valuable.
And it requires work to implement a new format, so there should be a
good reason to do that, which goes back to my point 1.

Harald