On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html