On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

Mike
--
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