From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: Big syntax change; support rewriting multiple refs Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:10:12 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vfy3ejre3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 24 11:10:39 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 1IDGPa-0005sA-J2 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:10:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934845AbXGXJKb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:10:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934640AbXGXJKa (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:10:30 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36756 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S934043AbXGXJK3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:10:29 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2007 09:10:27 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO openvpn-client) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 24 Jul 2007 11:10:27 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18n0CFw/ocnkFdC0tA5XxdqYILOSIQo7lNPscvvWR QzBow9IPgGRva4 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vfy3ejre3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> 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, 23 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Junio, I know that this comes quite late in the game, but I really > > think that the "first arg is new branch name" was a bad syntax. > > > > Could you please consider taking this patch (or whatever version > > comes out after review ;-) or keeping filter-branch of 1.5.3? I > > do not want people to get used to the borked syntax... > > Yeah, "No new features after -rc" should not apply to this one. > > I was actually going to ask you about it, since this is a feature we > have already advertised to the public, but still is a new feature, and > we'd be better off getting it right in the first public version. Thanks. > > BTW I considered "git log -g --all" as an alternative to > > inspecting refs/original/, but ATM this die()s if just _one_ of > > the refs has no logs. Probably should fix that, too. > > I do not think refs/original/ is such a hot feature. What's wrong with > "gitk mine@{1}...mine"? If you are saying $ git filter-branch --all potentially all refs are rewritten. To find out which ones actually changed, you can use "git show-ref | grep ^refs/original/" ATM. It is not really easy to do it otherwise. With the patches I sent out yesterday, $ git log -g --no-walk --all --decorate --abbrev-commit --pretty=oneline --since= would be similar, but not as comfortable, would it? Of course, we could teach filter-branch an option, say --show-changed, which will not actually filter branches, but instead look at the reflogs itself and show the refs which were recently changed by filter-branch. But note that you can switch off reflogs. Ciao, Dscho