Hi, On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > I propose that you just get rid of the "seed" stance and don't fail if a > > > commit cannot be mapped - just use it unchanged (don't forget to adjust > > > the map() function, too). > > > > It is as much for debug reasons as for consistency, so I'd rather keep it. > > One more safety valve for catching bugs. > > > > > Then you can get rid of -r and use -k to specify everything you want > > > under "--not" in the rev-list. > > > > Actually, -r is quite useful. It means "start rewriting with this commit", > > and saying "--not <commit>^" is _not_ the same when <commit> is a merge. > > But this makes only sense if you have a linear history. Consider this > history, where you want to rewrite the commits that are only on branch > 'next': > > --A--B--C--D--E--F--G--H <- master > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > X--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o <- next > > How would you go about with the current calling convention? Are you actually sure that this scenario makes sense? When is the last time you wanted to filter a branch? In any case, for such a degenerated test case I would rather try to limit filtering in the filter expression. Remember: you don't have to change _every_ commit. Of course, if I am the only one defending this behaviour, I'll change it. Ciao, Dscho - 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
