Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:08:37AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > >> > 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"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
