From: Matthias Beyer Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 10:37:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] Introduce git-history(1) command for easy history editing Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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? If we start > rewriting multiple branches we should probably check that we're not > rewriting something that has been merged upstream but if I rewrite a commits > that's an ancestor of several branches it would be very helpful to rewrite > them all at the same time to keep them in sync. Its mostly because I don't like too much magic and because I think being explicit is always better than not. So from my POV, I would expect "the simple case" to be "the simple CLI call" and if I want the tool to do magic and "rewrite all the things"^tm, that I would need to specify a flag for that. Best, Matthias