Am 8/9/2013 8:33, schrieb shawn wilson: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Am 8/8/2013 23:11, schrieb Phil Hord: >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Am 8/7/2013 8:24, schrieb shawn wilson:> ... create a repo for one of >>>>>> these scripts and I'd like to keep the commit history. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, so: >>>>>> % find -type f ! -iname "webban.pl" | while read f; do git >>>>>> filter-branch -f --index-filter "git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch $f" >>>>>> HEAD ; done >>>>>> > >> I'm not sure. On second thought, my suggested command is not sufficient. >> It does remove the empty commits, but it does not remove the other files. >> So, Shawn's original filter-branch invocations are still needed. >> > > Yeah, I have tried this and haven't gotten any closer. I can either > remove all of the history or that one commit that has nothing to do > with my file is there. This is also reproducable in a new repo. > > Is this a bug with filter-branch or git? This doesn't seem like a > feature (or how things should act). Let's check: After running your command above to remove other files, does the command git filter-branch -f HEAD webban.pl remove the empty commit (if necessary, replace HEAD by the branch name that you are interested in)? -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html