> Not sure if this is written by an AI, but I'll engage, because it's a bit misleading. What a tinfoil hat kind of remark. Just because you read something that

> Not sure if this is written by an AI, but I'll engage, because it's a bit misleading. What a tinfoil hat kind of remark. Just because you read something that you dislike that doesn't mean the LLM bogeyman is behind it. > the split sub-subcommand is really _quite_ difficult to do in other Git tooling Nonsense. - copy a commit hash and start interactive rebase before that commit, - run git checkout on that commit hash and pick the files you want to split - run git commit, - resume rebase. Done. You also have variants of this, such as doing git reset on a edit, recommitting, and resuming rebase. > The point is, interactive rebasing is a horrible solution to this problem (...) This is your personal and baseless opinion on the topic. Something like git history split saves you a step when compared with interactive rebase. The biggest complain you can throw at interactive rebase is that operations such as splitting commits, renaming or reordering commits, dropping commits, etc are not what you think when talking about rebasing. But that's it. I mean, if interactive rebase added a command to split commits, git history would be hard to justify.