Jeff King <> 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.


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
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to