Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] replay: add --revert mode to reverse commit changes

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2026, 09:13 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1CAYZwK4x4-AZWjx3cubzu5WcndR8WJzhcegET+i22nA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87tsvbe2sm.fsf@iotcl.com>

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 6:35 PM Toon Claes <toon@iotcl.com> wrote:

>
> Siddharth Asthana <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-replay.adoc b/Documentation/git-replay.adoc
> > index 8d696ce3ab..ffdf790278 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-replay.adoc
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-replay.adoc
> > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ git-replay - EXPERIMENTAL: Replay commits on a new base, works with bare repos t
> >  SYNOPSIS
> >  --------
> >  [verse]
> > -(EXPERIMENTAL!) 'git replay' ([--contained] --onto <newbase> | --advance <branch>) [--ref-action[=<mode>]] <revision-range>
> > +(EXPERIMENTAL!) 'git replay' ([--contained] --onto <newbase> | --advance <branch> | --revert <branch>) [--ref-action[=<mode>]] <revision-range>...
>
> The modes `--onto`, `--advance` and `--revert` seem to be extremely
> different from each other. So I'm starting to wonder whether it won't
> make more sense to instead create subcommands instead of options for
> these. Maybe something like:
>
>     git replay revert --base=<branch> <revision-range>
>     git replay pick --base=<branch> <revision-range>
>     git replay replay --base=<branch> <revision-range>

(I think you mean `git replay rebase` in the above line, no?)

I agree that we should consider this. But I think we should do it separately in another series, after this one about --revert is merged. We might even consider waiting until we have more experience using `git replay --revert` to make a more informed decision. We shouldn't wait for too long either though...

Also if we nearly always need a base, then why not:

  git replay rebase <base> <revision-range>
  git replay pick <base> <revision-range>
  git replay revert <base> <revision-range>

Or what was the reason for introducing --base=<branch>?