On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > Ahha, no but: git filter-branch -f HEAD -- webban.pl did Thanks. The question still stands though - why is that unassociated commit left there? -- 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