Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] Introduce git-history(1) command for easy history editing
- From
Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 10, 2025, 16:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CANiSa6hwaQ2zLsvw=uiJNgfVYAVp2RyQtgVeTevZ5NO5p2Xmgg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <paqf2ko6kcm5qdcqxqz57qu6gjw3vf6boabjsryeugfnlzzb7z@4dzqo6jug6l2>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM Matthias Beyer <mail@beyermatthias.de> wrote:
Show 30 quoted lines
>
> Am Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 09:58:13AM +0000, schrieb Phillip Wood:
> > Hi Matthias
> >
> > On 03/12/2025 18:18, Matthias Beyer wrote:
> > > Am Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 10:12:31PM +0200, schrieb SZEDER Gábor:
> > >
> > > > Let's suppose I have this piece of history, I'm on 'branch2', and I
> > > > drop commit B. Which commits will be rewritten and which branches
> > > > will be repointed?
> > > >
> > > > A---B---C---D branch1
> > > > \ \
> > > > \ E---F branch2
> > > > \ \
> > > > \ G---H---I branch3
> > > > \
> > > > J---K---L branch4
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just speaking as a user here, but my expectation in this scenario would
> > > be that rewriting B would be denied by default here, as branch{1..4}
> > > would be rewritten although I am at branch2.
> > >
> > > In the scenario at hand, I would expect that I can only rewrite G, H, I
> > > while on branch 3 and J, K, L while on branch4 (without passing some
> > > extra flags for "yes, please also rewrite the other branches").
> >
> > Is that because you have branches that you don't want to rewrite because
> > they've been merged upstream or is there another reason?I think that's a common reason even if it's not Matthias's reason. Perhaps one way of doing it would be to have a configurable set of ref patterns that are considered immutable. That's similar to what jj does, though we use a more general language for selecting revisions for it (https://docs.jj-vcs.dev/latest/config/#set-of-immutable-commits). I think that has been well received. As you might expect, the set of immutable revisions are respected by all commands.