From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add git-filter-branch Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:55:31 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <4663BCDA.F1BADDD8@eudaptics.com> <46643F2D.7C896CBC@eudaptics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 04 19:57:42 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 1HvGoH-0002rX-9J for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:57:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757704AbXFDR5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:57:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757606AbXFDR5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:57:37 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:50268 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756070AbXFDR5g (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:57:36 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jun 2007 17:57:35 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 04 Jun 2007 19:57:35 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19mpIQ3+opm6F8YV4t/gpFjKn7Q2hWFvxYb3QF1LM yOmvBXGASjcOsP X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <46643F2D.7C896CBC@eudaptics.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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 ^" is _not_ the same when 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