From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] filter-branch: introduce convenience function "skip_commit" Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:39:09 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070831191921.GB2151@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <7vzm07wftf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Karl =?utf-8?Q?Hasselstr=C3=B6m?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 31 23:39:34 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 1IRED2-0006eh-Ec for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:39:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965954AbXHaVjR (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:39:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965888AbXHaVjQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:39:16 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:38244 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965473AbXHaVjQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:39:16 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2007 21:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 31 Aug 2007 23:39:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/NlZsLfkrN5ff8PPYs0XYrMNT5pr3TDTc7/B/RxD RsDhw9ZUBAeIfI X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vzm07wftf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Karl Hasselstr?m wrote: > > > >> On 2007-08-31 20:06:27 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> > >> > It does _not_ undo the changeset corresponding to that commit, but > >> > it _skips_ the revision. IOW its ancestors' tree objects remain the > >> > same. > >> > >> While this is true too, I'm guessing you intended to say that its > >> _descendants'_ tree objects remain the same. Right? > > > > Right. So how about: > > > > IOW no tree objects are changed by this. > > Ok, will amend. Thanks; this was the next mail I wanted to send ;-) Ciao, Dscho