Hi,
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Junio, I know that this comes quite late in the game, but I really
> > think that the "first arg is new branch name" was a bad syntax.
> >
> > Could you please consider taking this patch (or whatever version
> > comes out after review ;-) or keeping filter-branch of 1.5.3? I
> > do not want people to get used to the borked syntax...
>
> Yeah, "No new features after -rc" should not apply to this one.
>
> I was actually going to ask you about it, since this is a feature we
> have already advertised to the public, but still is a new feature, and
> we'd be better off getting it right in the first public version.
Thanks.
> > BTW I considered "git log -g --all" as an alternative to
> > inspecting refs/original/, but ATM this die()s if just _one_ of
> > the refs has no logs. Probably should fix that, too.
>
> I do not think refs/original/ is such a hot feature. What's wrong with
> "gitk mine@{1}...mine"?
If you are saying
$ git filter-branch <some-filters> --all <rev-list-options>
potentially all refs are rewritten.
To find out which ones actually changed, you can use "git show-ref | grep
^refs/original/" ATM.
It is not really easy to do it otherwise. With the patches I sent out
yesterday,
$ git log -g --no-walk --all --decorate --abbrev-commit
--pretty=oneline --since=<before-the-last-filter-branch-call>
would be similar, but not as comfortable, would it?
Of course, we could teach filter-branch an option, say --show-changed,
which will not actually filter branches, but instead look at the reflogs
itself and show the refs which were recently changed by filter-branch.
But note that you can switch off reflogs.
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
