Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:43 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> [...] >> >> > AFAIK, filter-branch is not causing support headaches for any >> > git developers today. With so many commands in git, it's >> > unlikely newbies will ever get around to discover it :) >> > So I think think we should be in any rush to remove it. >> >> Nah, discovering it is simple. Just Google for "git change author". That >> eventually leads to a script that uses "git filter-branch --env-filter" >> to get the job done, and I'm afraid it is spread all over the world. >> >> See, e.g.: >> >> https://help.github.com/en/articles/changing-author-info > > Side note: Is the goal to "fix names and email addresses in this > repository"? If so, this guide fails: it doesn't update tagger names > or email addresses. Indeed, filter-branch doesn't provide a way to do > that. (Not to mention other problems like not updating references to > commit hashes in commit messages when it busy rewriting everything.) No. Maybe the original goal was like that, by I, personally, use modified version of this to change my "Author" credentials from "internal" to "public" in branches that I'm going to send upstream, so the actual aim is to change e-mail of particular Author from a@b to c@d in all the commits in a (feature) branch. > >> > But I agree that filter-branch isn't useful and certainly >> > shouldn't be encouraged/promoted. >> >> Well, is there more suitable way to change author for a (large) set of >> commits then? > > I would say yes, use git filter-repo (note that this thread started > with me proposing filter-repo for inclusion in git.git -- and getting > suggestions that we should remove stuff instead of adding more stuff). > I'm biased, but I think it's much better at this particular job as > well: Well, I don't want to change the entire repo, and I don't immediately see how to do it with git filter-repo. Is it at all possible? > You can create a mailmap file and pass it to the --mailmap option to > git-filter-repo. > > Or, if you prefer (perhaps you don't like git's mailmap format as used > by shortlog and now log, or perhaps you really want to be able to do > regex replacement or something), you can use the --name-callback or > --email-callback to work on those fields more directly. > > Or, if you prefer (e.g. you want to handle author vs. committer vs. > tagger differently), you can use the --commit-callback and > --tag-callback filters. > > As an added bonus, filter-repo will also perform the rewrite far > faster than filter-branch (and rewrite commit hashes in commit > messages as alluded to above). These things are nice to have indeed, but it always changes the entire repo, right? If so, it's not a suitable substitute for git-filter-branch for particular job at hand. Actually, I'd rather expect some support for this in "git rebase", being git history editing/reshaping tool, but it looks like it only has it in the form that is very difficult to automate. > >> > Yet there's probably still users which ARE happy with it, that >> > will never hit the edge cases and problems it poses; and will >> > never read release notes. And said users are probably getting >> > git from a slow-moving distro, so it'd be a disservice to them >> > if they lost a tool they depend on without any warning. >> >> Personally, I'm far from happy with it, but I have no clue how to >> substitute it in the job above. Anybody? > > The start of this thread where I proposed git filter-repo for > inclusion in git[1] had links to documentation and comparisons to > other tools and such. You may find those links helpful; if not, let > me know what needs to be fixed in the documentation. Thank you for the references, I find it a very nice tool to have! Pity it's not an entire substitute for git filter-branch. -- Sergey
