When two branches are merged that modify a subdirectory (possibly in different intermediate steps) such that both end up identical, then rev-list chooses only one branch. But when we filter history, we want to keep both branches. Therefore, we must use --full-history. Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- git-filter-branch.sh | 2 +- t/t7003-filter-branch.sh | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-filter-branch.sh b/git-filter-branch.sh index 4ef4570..2e4ccec 100755 --- a/git-filter-branch.sh +++ b/git-filter-branch.sh @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ case "$filter_subdir" in ;; *) git-rev-list --reverse --topo-order --default HEAD \ - --parents "$@" -- "$filter_subdir" + --parents --full-history "$@" -- "$filter_subdir" esac > ../revs commits=$(cat ../revs | wc -l | tr -d " ") diff --git a/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh b/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh index 292b837..0fabe49 100755 --- a/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh +++ b/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh @@ -78,4 +78,25 @@ test_expect_success 'subdirectory filter result looks okay' ' ! git show sub:subdir ' +test_expect_success 'setup and filter history that requires --full-history' ' + git checkout master && + mkdir subdir && + echo A > subdir/new && + git add subdir/new && + test_tick && + git commit -m "subdir on master" subdir/new && + git rm a && + test_tick && + git commit -m "again subdir on master" && + git merge branch && + git-filter-branch --subdirectory-filter subdir sub-master +' + +test_expect_success 'subdirectory filter result looks okay' ' + test 3 = $(git-rev-list -1 --parents sub-master | wc -w) && + git show sub-master^:new && + git show sub-master^2:new && + ! git show sub:subdir +' + test_done -- 1.5.2 - 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
