From: Pablo Sabater <pabloosabaterr@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:14:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] builtin/history: abort reword on unchanged message
Message-ID: <CAN5EUNRW3gyLKGC7x5BBMTNKtunoQks9AaXJse4PHvCziRF87A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmrx5z0po.fsf@gitster.g>

El lun, 8 jun 2026 a las 14:16, Junio C Hamano (<gitster@pobox.com>) escribió:
>
[snip]
>
> `git rebase -i` may have an excuse that because it, unlike "git
> commit --amend", operates on multiple commits by design.  A single
> "--force" option given to the command would not have worked as an
> escape hatch to allow the user to tell the command "in this reword
> of this particular commit, I ended up doing nothing, but I still
> want an updated committer log timestamp".  Perhaps giving the
> "--force" (or --force-rewrite") option at "rebase --continue" time
> may work, but in any case, unless we plan to transition to these
> "better" default behaviour at a big version boundary, speculating
> what a "better" behaviour would have been may be fun but not very
> productive.
>
>
> [Footnote]
>
>  *1* Besides, doesn't "--update-refs" in "rebase -i" allow you to
>      adjust the branches?
>
>  *2* But it is an established behaviour people _rely_ on, so even
>      though it may have been better if these commands behaved
>      differently, it probably is a bit too late to change it now.
>
>  *3* This includes the case where the original author is especially
>      difficult to work with and would complain any change to their
>      commits, even if the only change you made for them is a
>      typofix.  Fixing a small typo/grammo may not be worth your time
>      and unpleasant exchanges with them after touching their commit.

True, after reading it, history being more costly or the in memory are
not good args.
I do agree that these commands that do reword should check if the
reword ends up being the same message, given that history is a new
command we can have it from the start so users do not really expect
other behavior.
About the --force sounds good to me. I could seek to implement it in
this series if it's ok.
The footnote 3 is indeed a good example haha, but yeah, why rewrite
the history unnecessarily.

Thanks,
Pablo