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.
> 

A second later might be too much, but for the case where you need to
add a patch in the middle (which I suspect is the most timeconsuming
and tricky part at the moment), you might want to use a temporary
branch checked out where you need to apply the patch, apply the patch
and then rebase the rest of the history onto that new commit. Rebase
is fairly quick (although not a one-second thing for 20k commits), so
you'll get the time down quite a bit, I imagine.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231
--
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