Hmmm, I never used the "Select from Log..." before because I just don't need to reuse a prior commit's message.  I just tried that menu option for the first time and saw and tried the "Add fixup! prefix..." checkbox option.  Nice workflow if you know the correct commit to choose.

While that nicely adds fixup! to the chosen commit from the list, I usually don't know which one of a few commits to choose, so I have to look at the commits and their files and their diffs using the Commits, Files, and Changes views... which that window does not allow.

Yes, fixup! to subsequently amend a prior commit that is not the latest commit using rebase.

I don't understand "Heavyweight".  A button with "fixup!" on it is visible, fast, easy, 1 click; most simple and elementary; yes, it is not UI sexy.

Usability-wise, Select popup is multiple steps (click menu and mouse to it, scroll if necessary).  Control+space is also multiple steps (key and mouse to it or key and multiple arrow key usage). Both are more clutzy than clicking a button.  If no button, then perhaps both of these so works from keyboard-in-textbox and mouse.

Whichever approach(es) implemented, when invoked, it should paste "fixup! " (with the space) and position cursor after it.

Opening multiple repos is fantastic improvement and makes this request unnecessary.  Thank you!

> If you don't consider tracking, such an indicator would also show up for newly created, local branches. Is this still what you are expecting?

Yes.  Could also restrict to when having a tracked remote configured but it's not found, per below.

> You will also see a red "?" after the local branch name which will only show up in case of an obsolete tracking config.

Thank you; I'm sorry I did not notice that, I think because branch names are all longer and exceed my Branches view width and I'm used to hovering over the name, not horizontally scrolling.

This is the case I mainly meant, and the "red ?" is already an indicator, so this is an invalid request to add one.

Perhaps make red the whole branch name when the tracked remote does not exist, instead of a "red ?" at the end of the branch name?

I couple of other ideas, but I think my fav is a red branch name; these two following ideas change the consistency of the list beginnings between the branches sections, making Local Branches slightly different:

Perhaps the triangle sometimes present to the left of the branch name could be red when missing the tracked remote branch, in addition to the ? or as a replacement for?  (I'm still trying to learn when it appears and when it doesn't; seems only with remote branch existing or when is the current branch, but can't determine the other times, is it branched from sometimes? and there is no correlation in the tooltip for the triangle telling the state, which would be nice! :-)

Perhaps a small circle at the front of the branch name representing status (which could replace the ? and n> statuses at end of branch name)?  If this is irritating to some users, can have a config "Display 'Local Branches' status in Branches view" to display it or not.  Statuses such as:

• hollow for no remote
• solid for tracked remote (white or black, based on theme, as the triangle)
• solid red for tracked remote but no remote exists
• solid yellow for commits ahead of tracked remote (doesn't match Repos view status of red tho); doesn't have commit count tho
• solid green for commits behind tracked remote (matches Repos view status of green); doesn't have commit count tho

The new Log window repos/branches feature is awesome!  Thank you!

W00t!!  Thanks for the sneak peek.  Looking forward to it!

Any improvements planned for this one in 18.2 (he asks, hopefully... :-) )?

...or "Restart SmartGit".  I think Relaunch is a good clarity replacement.

Instead of "switching back" can SG devs improve the new one with this feature the prior had? I would like that more because I appreciate the improved diffs; I also miss the "stage lines" that worked better of the prior implementation.

Oh duh, of course.  Thank you.  Wish I had thought of trying that!

My original thought was to remove items that didn't match for clarity, but that's a low priority/luxury item.