From: Anatoly Borodin <anatoly.borodin@gmail.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bugs in git filter-branch (git replace related)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:24:07 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <n8gao5$3c6$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20160129061820.GB23106@sigill.intra.peff.net
Hi Jeff,
I've created a gist with the script
https://gist.github.com/anatolyborodin/6505a364a68584f13846
I've added some changes and a second test (will be discussed in the
comments).
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or not. The "empty commit" check works by
> checking the tree sha1s, without doing a full diff respecting replace
> refs.
>
> You're expecting git to notice a tree change, even though it never even
> examined the tree in the first place (because you didn't give it a tree
> or index filter).
When git-filter-branch(1) says "If you have any grafts or replacement
refs defined, running this command will make them permanent.", and it
doesn't work like that because of some optimization, it *is* a bug.
> Try:
>
> git filter-branch --prune-empty --tree-filter true master
>
> which will force git to go through the motions of checking out the
> replaced content and re-examining it.
Thank you, I've added this command to the script, and it works! I think
it should be added to git-filter-branch(1), if there is no other way to
rewrite the optimization.
>> Bug 2: the replace refs are not ignored (they can epresent blobs, trees etc,
>> but even if they represent commits - should they be rewritten?).
>
> You told it "--all", which is passed to rev-list, where it means "all
> refs". I agree that running filter-branch on refs/replace is probably
> not going to yield useful results, but I'm not sure if it is
> filter-branch's responsibility to second-guess the rev-list options.
Look how `git log --all` works (see the second test in the script): it
ignores (without any messages) the blobs, and writes only the commits.
For example, the same commit log message is printed twice in the second
testcase.
Maybe it makes sence, I don't know. I would suggest that all
refs/replace/* heads should be ignored by `git log`. `git rev-list
--no-replace` maybe?
> Probably the documentation for filter-branch should recommend
> "--branches --tags" instead of "--all", though.
Or redefine `--all` as "all refs excepting refs/replace/*". Who would
really want to run `--all` the way it works now?
The blobs replaces should be ignored, as in `git log --all`. Is there
any reason to rewrite refs/rebase/hash if it's a replace commit?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Anatoly Borodin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-29 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 14:46 Bugs in git filter-branch (git replace related) Anatoly Borodin
2016-01-29 6:18 ` Jeff King
2016-01-29 18:24 ` Anatoly Borodin [this message]
2016-01-29 23:11 ` Jeff King
2016-02-08 23:55 ` A different bug in git-filter-branch (v2.7.0) Anatoly Borodin
2016-02-22 21:13 ` Jeff King
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='n8gao5$3c6$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=anatoly.borodin@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/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).