* Re: Problem with git filter-branch
2008-10-25 20:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2008-10-25 20:40 ` Mike Hommey
2008-10-25 20:55 ` Pascal Obry
2008-10-26 5:07 ` Jeff King
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mike Hommey @ 2008-10-25 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Pascal Obry, git list
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:36:26PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Pascal Obry wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I used to run the following command:
> >
> > $ git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat --parent-filter "sed -e
> > 's/^$/-p c96d4da294667de1800687d25340551683153002/'" svn-release_2_6
> >
> > without problem, I now get this:
> >
> > Namespace refs/original/ not empty
> > rm: cannot remove directory
> > `/home/obry/dev/repositories/git/proj/.git-rewrite': Directory not empty
>
> It is a (maybe ill-conceived) feature. When branches are rewritten, their
> original versions are stored in the refs/original/ namespace. You can
> force overwriting with "-f".
>
> I wonder if people would like to have this feature removed; reflogs should
> be enough.
I have never have had use for the refs/original namespace, and I used
filter-branch more than a couple of times. Though I would certainly
understand that people would not be confident enough not to have a
parachute. Reflog would indeed be enough, as long as it is not
branch@{42000} that needs to be used. Haven't checked, but theorically,
it should be branch@{1} in all cases, so no problem here.
Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with git filter-branch
2008-10-25 20:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-25 20:40 ` Mike Hommey
@ 2008-10-25 20:55 ` Pascal Obry
2008-10-26 5:07 ` Jeff King
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Pascal Obry @ 2008-10-25 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git list
Hi Johannes,
> It is a (maybe ill-conceived) feature. When branches are rewritten, their
> original versions are stored in the refs/original/ namespace. You can
> force overwriting with "-f".
Working fine indeed with -f option. What's strange is that it used to
work without the -f option. Would be nice to improve the error message
in this specific case.
Anyway, thanks a lot.
--
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Problem with git filter-branch
2008-10-25 20:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-10-25 20:40 ` Mike Hommey
2008-10-25 20:55 ` Pascal Obry
@ 2008-10-26 5:07 ` Jeff King
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2008-10-26 5:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Pascal Obry, git list
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:36:26PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> It is a (maybe ill-conceived) feature. When branches are rewritten, their
> original versions are stored in the refs/original/ namespace. You can
> force overwriting with "-f".
>
> I wonder if people would like to have this feature removed; reflogs should
> be enough.
>
> Thoughts?
I have always been annoyed by the refs/original namespace, and it
certainly makes explaining the common task of "how do I get this blob
out of my repo" a bit more confusing.
So I would be happy to see it go, and the reflog mentioned in its place:
diff --git a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
index fed6de6..1e8e7b4 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
@@ -43,4 +43,4 @@ rewriting published history.)
Always verify that the rewritten version is correct: The original refs,
-if different from the rewritten ones, will be stored in the namespace
-'refs/original/'.
+if different from the rewritten ones, will be available through the
+reflog as <branch>@{1}.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread