On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:43:59 +0100
Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Yann,
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Yann Dirson <dir...@bertin.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:43:53 +0100
> > Thomas Rast <tr...@student.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> >> I suppose there's the additional issue that grafts are much easier to
> >> use than replacements if you really only want to replace some parent
> >> lists. With replace you need to handcraft the replacement commits, and
> >> git-replace(1) unhelpfully does not say this, much less gives an example
> >> how to do it.
> > Right, replace refs can surely be made easier to use. The requirement to
> > craft a
> > new commit manually is a major step back in ease of use.
> Yeah, at one point I wanted to have a command that created to craft a
> new commit based on an existing one.
> Perhaps it could be useful when using filter-branch or perhaps it
> could reuse some filter-branch code.
> > Maybe something like "git replace -p <orig-commit> <parent>..." to just
> > provide a simple
> > API to the exact graft functionnality would be good. But it would be
> > commit-specific, whereas
> > replace refs are indeed more generic, and, one could want to rewrite any
> > other part of the commit,
> > so we could prefer a more general mechanism.
> Yeah I wondered at one point if something like the following would do:
> git replace --parent <parent1> --parent <parent2> --author <author>
> --commiter <commiter> ... <orig-commit>
Yes, modification flags, that would only be allowed when the objects are
and would cause creation of a replace commit that's <orig-commit> plus
We could then reuse the relevant options from git-commit, and add the missing
But wouldn't it stretch git-replace too much, to add commit-specific behaviour
> > Something that could be useful in this respect, would be an --amend like
> > option to git-commit, like
> > "git commit --replace". But unfortunately it does not allow to change
> > parents, and it has the
> > drawback of requiring that HEAD points to the commit to be replaced.
> > So maybe, if there are no other idea, a simple "git graft" command that
> > would wrap "git replace",
> > would fill the gap.
> It would not be straightforward to call it "graft" if it uses git replace.
Well, "git replace" would just be the "implementation detail". The idea would
be to keep
the concept of a "graft", and just change its implementation. If we care (and
do not, it's just a thought experiment ;), we could even provide, for
pre-replace gits, a
"git graft" implementation that would manipulate info/grafts, together with a
saying that direct manipulation of info/grafts is deprecated.
Yann Dirson - Bertin Technologies
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