Re: [PATCH] Add git-filter-branch

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > > I propose that you just get rid of the "seed" stance and don't fail if a
> > > commit cannot be mapped - just use it unchanged (don't forget to adjust
> > > the map() function, too).
> > 
> > It is as much for debug reasons as for consistency, so I'd rather keep it.
> > One more safety valve for catching bugs.
> > 
> > > Then you can get rid of -r and use -k to specify everything you want
> > > under "--not" in the rev-list.
> > 
> > Actually, -r is quite useful. It means "start rewriting with this commit",
> > and saying "--not <commit>^" is _not_ the same when <commit> is a merge.
> 
> But this makes only sense if you have a linear history. Consider this
> history, where you want to rewrite the commits that are only on branch
> 'next':
> 
> --A--B--C--D--E--F--G--H       <- master
>    \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
>     X--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o  <- next
> 
> How would you go about with the current calling convention?

Are you actually sure that this scenario makes sense? When is the last 
time you wanted to filter a branch?

In any case, for such a degenerated test case I would rather try to limit 
filtering in the filter expression. Remember: you don't have to change 
_every_ commit.

Of course, if I am the only one defending this behaviour, I'll change it.

Ciao,
Dscho