Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:08:37AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
quoted
quoted
Be it graft or replace, I do not think we want to invite people to
use these mechansims too lightly to locally rewrite their history
willy-nilly without fixing their mistakes at the object layer with
"commit --amend", "rebase", "bfg", etc. in the longer term. So in
that sense, adding a command to make it easy is not something I am
enthusiastic about.
On the other hand, if the user does need to use graft or replace
(perhaps to prepare for casting the fixed history in stone with
filter-branch), it would be good to help them avoid making mistakes
while doing so and tool support may be a way to do so.
So, ... I am of two minds.
...
I do not think the features we are talking about are significantly more
dangerous than "git replace" is in the first place. If we want to make
people aware of the dangers, perhaps git-replace.1 is the right place to
do it.
Sure.
So should we take the four-patch series for "git replace --edit"?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:39:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:08:37AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
quoted
quoted
Be it graft or replace, I do not think we want to invite people to
use these mechansims too lightly to locally rewrite their history
willy-nilly without fixing their mistakes at the object layer with
"commit --amend", "rebase", "bfg", etc. in the longer term. So in
that sense, adding a command to make it easy is not something I am
enthusiastic about.
On the other hand, if the user does need to use graft or replace
(perhaps to prepare for casting the fixed history in stone with
filter-branch), it would be good to help them avoid making mistakes
while doing so and tool support may be a way to do so.
So, ... I am of two minds.
...
I do not think the features we are talking about are significantly more
dangerous than "git replace" is in the first place. If we want to make
people aware of the dangers, perhaps git-replace.1 is the right place to
do it.
Sure.
So should we take the four-patch series for "git replace --edit"?
I think that is certainly going in the right direction, but it is
missing documentation and tests still. Aside from a one-liner bug (which
Christian pointed out on the list), I do not think it will _hurt_
anybody. But it probably should be "finished" before seeing the light of
day. I'd be happy if you wanted to pick it up for "pu" or even "next"
waiting and do that finishing in-tree.
Otherwise, I may eventually get to it and re-roll the whole completed
series.
-Peff