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. > > Maybe if we add a new command (or maybe a script) with a name long and > cryptic-looking enough like "git create-replacement-object" it will > scare casual users from touching it, while power users will be happy > to benefit from it. 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. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html