git history
Ranked 8 of 9 version control features by recommenders
Gives Git simpler commands for common history edits such as reword, fixup and split, a safer step up from interactive rebase. Critics say it adds little beyond existing tools.
Gives Git simpler commands for common history edits such as reword, fixup and split, a safer step up from interactive rebase. Critics say it adds little beyond existing tools.
15 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 9
- criticize it
- 6
- approval share
- 60%
Recommended in 3 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: not recommended
- February 2026: not recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: recommended
- May 2026: not recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 9 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, not met.
- 1.5 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 3 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, not met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Handy for common history edits
“becomes a good, safe stepping stone for a handful of common tasks”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention” “That and `history split` will sure come handy!”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention” “seems to be useful for quick reword”
Comment from 20 Apr 2026 in “Highlights from Git 2.54” Simpler than interactive rebase
“rebase -i has always been a sledgehammer when sometimes you just need a scalpel”
Comment from 24 Apr 2026 in “Highlights from Git 2.54” “these commands are a bit more ergonomic”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Adds little beyond existing tools
“Git history isn't a major improvement, but it's an improvement on a major weak point.”
Comment from 19 Aug 2026 in “Splitting a Git Commit” “he ought to know that these use cases are well-covered already”
Comment from 6 Dec 2025 in “Stacked Diffs with git rebase —onto” “Wonder if the history command is all that useful.”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention” Bypasses standard commit logic
“That feels like a huge oversight and like it bypasses standard commit logic.”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention” “there's no way to get `git history` commands to sign commits they modify”
Comment from 14 Jul 2026 in “The Git history command deserves more attention”
Other version control features people recommend
The four most recommended other version control features, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Git worktree | 58 | 21 | 73% | 11 | — | Approved |
| git rebase | 24 | 13 | 65% | 9 | — | — |
| git rerere | 19 | 4 | 83% | 8 | — | Approved |
| Git submodules | 14 | 13 | 52% | 7 | — | — |
| git historyThis page | 9 | 6 | 60% | 3 | — | — |
What people said
All 15 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“Git history isn't a major improvement, but it's an improvement on a major weak point.”
“split specifically needs an interactive terminal like git add -p does, so not many agents are good at it”
“Finding this usefull on migration”
“becomes a good, safe stepping stone for a handful of common tasks”
“That and `history split` will sure come handy!”
“I don't want all the branches containing a commit to be rebased automatically”
“these commands are a bit more ergonomic”
“That feels like a huge oversight and like it bypasses standard commit logic.”
“there's no way to get `git history` commands to sign commits they modify”
“Wonder if the history command is all that useful.”
“rebase -i has always been a sledgehammer when sometimes you just need a scalpel”
“Wish reword took a commit range though”
“seems to be useful for quick reword”
“`git history` as a name is somewhat pointless”
“he ought to know that these use cases are well-covered already”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.