On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 05:37:22PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > I am really unhappy that so much is talked about filtering out > > > commits. That is amost certainly not what you want in most cases. > > > In particular, I suspect that most users would expect the _changes_ > > > filtered out by such a command, which is just not true. > > > > I don't care about that either. I'm just mentioning it because it's > > mentioned in the git-filter-branch documentation (which you added). > > Which I copied. And this is not the first, let alone the only example in > filter-branch's documentation. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't blame me for doing something you have done yourself. And if you're not blaming me, but just making a general comment, then all I can say is that I agree with your comment. > However, this leaves things only in half-finished states. > > - "git filter-branch" did not learn the useful features that you seem to > need, and > > - your builtin is at most a start of a builtin replacement for > filter-branch, which changes the semantics, to be sure. > > I have no doubts that it will stay that way for a while, since this > builtin seems to be good enough for what you want it to do. If people find rewrite-commits useful, but think that something is missing, then I'd be willing to look into that. I'm personally not likely to work on fiter-branch, but maybe someone else, possibly inspired by rewrite-commits, will. But it is true that rewrite-commits does everything I want now. skimo - 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
