On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 9:44 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> > Seems fair...but why not make --update-refs the default and add an
> >> > option for those that just want the update commands?
> >>
> >> If this patch series had been sent a few months after `git replay` was
> >> introduced, I would have been fine with this series making `git
> >> replay` update the refs by default while adding an option that only
> >> outputs the commands. Unfortunately `git replay` seems to have been
> >> introduced in v2.44.0 (Feb 22, 2024), so more than 18 months ago. So
> >> even if it is marked as experimental, it's perhaps a bit late to make
> >> such a relatively big change in it?
> >
> > I don't think so; we marked it as experimental much more prominently
> > than other commands -- in the .c file, and three separate places in
> > the documentation.
>
> When we are talking about a change that breaks an established
> end-user expectation, it does not matter much if we wrote anything
> in the .c source files. The end-user facing documentation does.
>
> And as you said, "git replay -h" and "git replay --help" prominently
> show that the experimental nature of the command.
I should have clarified -- the .c change was specifically about making
"git replay -h" show the experimental nature of the command; if it was
just a code comment, I'd agree that it didn't matter, but it was
specifically about making the experimental status known to end users
in the short usage message:
$ git grep -2 EXPERIMENTAL '*.c'
builtin/replay.c-
builtin/replay.c- const char * const replay_usage[] = {
builtin/replay.c: N_("(EXPERIMENTAL!) git replay "
builtin/replay.c- "([--contained] --onto <newbase> |
--advance <branch>) "
builtin/replay.c- "<revision-range>..."),
$
> If this new behaviour is a clear improvement for majority of use
> cases, I am perfectly fine with changing the default behaviour so
> that everybody will benefit. It may still be good to add an option
> to allow the users to ask for the traditional "we'll give you a list
> of updates you can apply as you see fit, but would not update the
> refs ourselves" mode, though.
Yep.
