From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: linux@horizon.com
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] filter-branch: support skipping of commits more easily
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 06:12:17 +0100 (BST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706080605500.4059@racer.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070608021157.18066.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 7 Jun 2007, linux@horizon.com wrote:
> > I think that is fine; in effect, by saying "skip" B, you are
> > squashing B-C into C'.
> >
> > Does this mean that, given
> >
> > C---D---E
> > / /
> > A---B
> >
> > and if commit-filter says "skip" on D, the written history would
> > look like this?
> >
> > C'------E'
> > / /
> > A'--B'--'
> >
> > The new commit E' would become an evil merge that has difference
> > between D and E in the original history?
> >
> > I am not objecting; just trying to get a mental picture.
>
> I think, for compatibility with the existing git path limiter,
> it should delete D from the history only if:
> 1) Told to skip D, and
> 2) Told to skip B or C (or both).
>
> So you could get A--B--E' or A--C--E' or even A--E', but D would only
> be deleted if it wasn't needed as a merge marker.
>
> That's probably a little more complex to implement, but it feels like
> The Right Thing.
... but if that script should do that, the name "filter"-branch was a
misnomer.
It filters the _branch_. In the sense that a branch is one or more perls
of commits, uniting in the tip of that branch.
If you want to skip a commit, that is fine. But a commit is _not_ a patch,
no sir. It is a revision.
The fact that we actually are able to extract nice patches from any patch
series, does not mean that the revisions are actually only deltas with
regard to the previous commit. To the contrary: we actually allow -- and
encourage -- git-diff between different revisions, be they on the same
branch or not. That alone should tell everybody that a revision is a
revision is a revision, and _not_ a delta.
So, when you filter commits, you should not expect a certain _patch_ to be
skipped when you say "skip" (or maybe "squash", which I actually like
better, because it is as unambiguous as you get it), but a _commit_ (AKA
revision) to be skipped.
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-08 5:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-08 2:11 [PATCH/RFC] filter-branch: support skipping of commits more easily linux
2007-06-08 5:12 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-06-07 23:59 Johannes Schindelin
2007-06-08 0:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-06-08 4:17 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-06-08 6:40 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0706080605500.4059@racer.site \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).