Mike Hommey venit, vidit, dixit 02.07.2008 20:25:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Michael J Gruber wrote:
Maybe the upcoming git-sequencer could be the appropriate place? It
tries to achieve just that: edit history by specifying a list of
commands. The currently planned set of commands would need to be
That's the problem. Like git filter-branch, git sequencer needs you to
parameterise the changes, which, in my case, is hardly possible, since
the changes are randomlike.
Also, having to run the sequencer to dig 20000 commits into the past,
then change something, then come back up and rewrite all following
history and relations (parents/tags/merges) will take a sizeable amount
of time. I need something that can be changed at will, then viewed with
gitk a second later.
These edits are numerous and spread over many months, so the typical
history fixup-sessions involve periods where you make 30 random
historicaledits per hour (which need to be viewed and checked every time
immediately after making the change). And say once every 4 months, you
run it through git filter-branch to cast everything into stone. A
typical git filter-branch run takes 15 minutes on a repository this
size.
I think the point was more about making a tool to do exactly what you
want, based on the new git sequencer. Note that git filter-branch could
also be rewritten to use the sequencer.
Yes, that was at least my point. As I understand, git filter-branch -i
is a candidate for that rewrite.
But I understand now that OP wants to do lots of history edits and see
them immediately before doing the actual (time consuming) rewrite; and
then do the rewrite occasionally. Rewriting is surpirsingly slow even on
tmpfs.
Michael
--
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
