Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> writes: > We started looking at the documentation for git filter-branch and it > recommends not to use it. It states that "git-filter-branch is riddled with > gotchas resulting in various ways to easily corrupt repos or end up with a > mess worse than what you started with:".
I've used it quite a bit (including splicing 25 years of history across five SCMs) and have found it does what's on the label, that is just often not what people expect. I think it's fine in this case with the caveat that references to the parent directory (looks like for testing/data/, perhaps other places; actual license text) will no longer be consistent with the rewritten commit (potentially with rust/ subdirectory filtered into the base directory). Some structured editing can be done via script (say, if you want LICENSE.txt to always be present). If your goal is to have good provenance with respect to "who authored this and when", but not necessarily "let's bisect this bug", then filter-branch would make sense. > I guess we can decide to run this at any time, so let's discuss this more > once we have the repos building? Yeah, just make sure to do it before people start doing work in their clones.
