Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] replay: offer an option to linearize the commit topology

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2026, 14:57 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1pd17jgi.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGdK8v8Qk5XB=QL_yJDPTNjSb2rN08GiPpK50V2gAj1QQ@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 11:49 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> But if that is not the outcome they wanted, I fail to see why they
>> would feed all three branches to a single invocation of --linearize
>> in the first place.  After all, the command is only doing what it
>> was asked to do.
>
> Passing several branches isn't the user asking for concatenation; it's
> the user asking for replay's core feature: update many branches at
> once. Adding --linearize  to flatten a merge does have to join the
> lines which that merge combined, but it shouldn't also weld together
> branches that were never merged in the first place.  The user is
> combining two intended features, and the concatenation is an emergent
> third behavior that neither of them implies.

I am not yet convinced by the above.

 * The fact that the user ran 'git replay' indicates that they
   want the command's core feature of updating multiple
   branches.

 * The fact that the user specified '--linearize' indicates that
   they want a linear history, regardless of the number of positive
   branch tips they gave.

So from that point of view, I still think it reasonable to expect such a history to be linearized.

In any case, I am not the primary audience for this new feature, and I have no desire to dictate the design one way or the other. Let us hear what the topic author has to say.

I will mark the topic as "On hold, waiting for response".

Thanks.