Am 4/8/2013 23:54, schrieb Jeff King:
Yeah, it would make sense for filter-branch to have a --map-commit-ids
option or similar that does the update. At first I thought it might take
two passes, but I don't think it is necessary, as long as we traverse
the commits topologically (i.e., you
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:03:24AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 4/8/2013 23:54, schrieb Jeff King:
Yeah, it would make sense for filter-branch to have a --map-commit-ids
option or similar that does the update. At first I thought it might take
two passes, but I don't think it is
On 9 April 2013 18:01, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:03:24AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
If A mentions B (think of cherry-pick -x), then you must ensure that the
branch containing B was traversed first.
Yeah, you're right. Multiple passes are necessary to get it
Roberto Tyley roberto.ty...@gmail.com writes:
Here's an unmodified repo, in which the user unwisely committed a
database password:
https://github.com/bfg-repo-cleaner-demos/gma-demo-repo-original/commit/8c9cfe3c
The unwise commit is reverted with a second commit using 'git revert',
which
This is a demonstration of a mildly-interesting security concern
relating to Git git-filter-branch - not a vulnerability in Git
itself, just in the way it can be used. I thought it was interesting
to demonstrate that there is sometimes an avenue of attack for
recovering sensitive data that's been
5 matches
Mail list logo
