Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] builtin/history: abort reword on unchanged message

>
>
> > Le 8 juin 2026 à 08:23, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Having said that, I personally think that the current behaviour of
> > `commit --amend` and `history reword` are both _wrong_ [*2*].
> >
> > You may start `git commit --amend`, and after staring at the
> > existing commit log message for some time in your editor, it is
> > quite natural for you to decide that leaving the commit as-is is the
> > right thing [*3*] in your situation.  It may have been a better
> > design for the system to notice this situation and leave the commit
> > as-is, with an override option `--force` to allow users to forcibly
> > update the committer ident and timestamp in the commit header.  I am
> > not a `history reword` user (yet), but from the motivation you
> > described for this patch, I sense that the story is the same there.
>
> FWIW, in this situation I abort my editor (:cquit in Vim) so that the amend gets an error-valued exit code from the subprocess and aborts itself.
>
> Perhaps there could/should be a better side-channel for communicating that, though? I do not know how easy it is to tell other editors to « quit with errors ».

>
> > [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.