From: Martin von Zweigbergk Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:49:18 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] Introduce git-history(1) command for easy history editing Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM Matthias Beyer wrote: > > 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.