From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add git-filter-branch Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:00:27 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <4663BCDA.F1BADDD8@eudaptics.com> <46643F2D.7C896CBC@eudaptics.com> <46650A58.4934C07C@eudaptics.com> <466665AD.CF5B85DF@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 Wed Jun 06 17:02:50 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 1Hvx29-0003Hj-5s for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756402AbXFFPCi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:02:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758636AbXFFPCi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:02:38 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:50219 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756402AbXFFPCh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:02:37 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Jun 2007 15:02:35 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 06 Jun 2007 17:02:35 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/HH5QpJtrHS8u5cFWfrq/mMGQbcN9qWH6Y0IrfuB 3dkSUjpMFmOIcE X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <466665AD.CF5B85DF@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 Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: > It is more natural (for git users) to specify revision ranges like > 'master..next' instead. This makes it so. If no range is specified it > defaults to 'HEAD'. > > As a consequence, the new name of the filtered branch must be the first > non-option argument. All remaining arguments are passed to 'git rev-list' > unmodified. I was really close to do this myself. But I thought there was a problem to infer the correct source branch. But you're right, this is more gittish. (Consider that an ACK from me.) Of course, it would be even more so if the target branch name was "filtered", overrideable by "--target ". Ciao, Dscho