On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:37:01PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > I think what makes git-filter-branch different is that you can change > a large amount of history with git-filter-branch, including large > numbers of tags, etc. The reflog is quite sufficient to recover from > a screwed up "git commit --amend". But I don't think the reflog is > going to be sufficient given the kinds of changes that > git-filter-branch can potentially do to your repository. Maybe > default of --backup vs --no-backup could be changed via a config > parameter, but I think the default is of backing up refs is a good > think.... Yeah, it's clearly designed with rewriting a whole repo in mind. It might also be handy, though, as a quick way to rewrite a single branch. (E.g., "add 'Acked-by: Joe' to everything in 'for-upstream' not in 'origin'", or "rename foo to bar in every commit in 'topic' not in 'origin'".). I find the current defaults awkward for that case. Maybe it'd make sense to treat the two cases differently. > Perhaps a solution would be to add "git-filter-branch --cleanup" that > that clears the reflog and wipes the backed up tags; perhaps first > asking interactively if the user is really sure he/she wants to do > this. Maybe. --b. - 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
