From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] filter-branch: introduce convenience function "skip_commit" Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:32:28 -0700 Message-ID: <7vzm07wftf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070831191921.GB2151@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Karl =?utf-8?Q?Hasselstr=C3=B6m?= , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 31 23:32:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IRE6Z-0005Aj-EW for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:32:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966369AbXHaVcf (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:32:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966360AbXHaVcf (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:32:35 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:43780 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966336AbXHaVce (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:32:34 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E9912BEF8; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:32:51 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:05:40 +0100 (BST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi, > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Karl Hasselstr?m wrote: > >> On 2007-08-31 20:06:27 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> > It does _not_ undo the changeset corresponding to that commit, but >> > it _skips_ the revision. IOW its ancestors' tree objects remain the >> > same. >> >> While this is true too, I'm guessing you intended to say that its >> _descendants'_ tree objects remain the same. Right? > > Right. So how about: > > IOW no tree objects are changed by this. Ok, will amend.