Re: [PATCH v2] stash: add 'reword' subcommand

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Aug 11, 2026, 12:49 UTC
Message-ID: <ansaTmLSGUjWegFG@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq4ihjf7ds.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 08:42:23AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > I wonder if the reflog API needs to be extended before we can
> > implement this properly.  I imagine a set of functions like (there
> > may be others)
> >
> >  * refs_reflog_replace(ref_stash, idx, &reflog_data);
> >  * refs_reflog_edit_in_bulk(ref_stash, num_edit, reflog_edit[]);
> >
> > will become the foundations of such a feature.
> 
> On further thought, I think this fits pretty well into the general
> architecture of the refs subsystem.  Both backends would need
> refs_reflog_edit_in_bulk() in their vtable, while the single-entry
> edit can just be a thin wrapper passing a single-element
> reflog_edit[] array with a 'replace' operation.

Our reflog interfaces are still quite awful, but they have recently evolved so that we can at least batch-commit reflog entries via our transaction interfaces. They are still severely lacking though, and I haven't yet had the time (or motivation) to improve upon this.

> If someone is interested in implementing this, there are a few
> tricky details to be careful about:

I think instead of introducing the proposed interface, we should first investigate whether we can make the reference transactions more powerful to allow for all of these use cases.

Thanks!

Patrick