Subject: Re: RFC - "git editlog" feature for fixing up local commit messages

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:11:14 -0500

Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Michael J Gruber

>> I think the OP's point was that filter-branch is better at keeping
>> merges in place; I'm not sure if this is true when rebase-i is used with
>> reword only.
>
> I've never actually tried the "--preserve-merges" option to git rebase
> -i, but the description sounds as if it's supposed to not have this
> problem.  Can anyone confirm/deny?

preserve-merges is in bad shape.  I’d recommend not using it unless you’re
willing to hack on it.

Example issues: interacts poorly with merge.log, reordering commits
produces very confusing results.

Example of why it is not necessarily the tool for all seasons: requires a
diff+apply cycle.  If you are tracking large or binary files or amending a
very old commit message, it makes more sense to avoid this overhead.  See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/143426
for example.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan