On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 08:03:18PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2025, at 19:42, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > This is quite complex, and overall I would claim that most people who > > are not experts in Git would struggle with this flow. > > > > Introduce a new "split" subcommand for git-history(1) to make this way > > easier. All the user needs to do is to say `git history split $COMMIT`. > > From hereon, Git asks the user which parts of the commit shall be moved > > out into a separate commit and, once done, asks the user for the commit > > message. Git then creates that split-out commit and applies the original > > commit on top of it. > > The interactive mode here seems just-right. > > • Split in two, give the commit message for the new one > • I can use `git history split :/'The second batch'` if I want to split > a single commit multiple times > • I can use `git history reword :/'The second batch'` if I want > to change the original commit message as well > > But it’s interactive-only, correct? Would it make sense for a stateful > split session so that other tools could be used to split the patch? Yeah, it's interactive-only. I see git-history(1) as part of porcelain rather than plumbing, so this is kind of intentional. I also wouldn't quite know how this would look like to have a split session. But if anyone has an idea how such a stateful split session might look like I don't see a strong reason to not add this in the future. For now though my focus is to get a baseline going that helps the user to perform common tasks easier as opposed to before. Patrick
