Re: [PATCH 0/8] history: introduce "split" subcommand
- From
D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 3, 2026, 18:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALnO6CDMF1G2AFMDXu=xhCv5XcgKm_-JXY2RvLc4TsD9Kh-K6Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20260302-pks-history-split-v1-0-444fc987a324@pks.im>
On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 7:15 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> > Hi, > > this patch series introduces `git history split` as an easy way to split > up one commit into multiple commits.
Exciting news, thanks!
Show 20 quoted lines
> This subcommand has already been > introduced in earlier versions of my git-history(1) patch series, but I > eventually decided to evict them from this series so that we can rather > focus more on basic decisions. > > In any case, the current version of this patch series matches (to the > best of my knowledge) the latest agreements on the mailing list around > its behaviour. Most importantly: > > - It will ask for commit messages for both commits, not only the first > commit, which has been a bit of a discussion point. > > - It is not possible to edit hunks. This results in a mode where > conflicts are not possible as the tree of the second commit will > always match the tree of the original commit. Conflict handling for > subsequent subcommands will be a bigger topic, as it probably > depends on support for first-class conflicts. > > - We also update dependent branches, same as with the latest iteration > of `git history reword`.
Matches my memory. I think the dependent branches bit should probably depend on the same --update-refs option, so I'll expect to see that (not sure why we'd make any other choice ;).
-- D. Ben Knoble