On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 06:24:07PM +, Anatoly Borodin wrote:
> > You're expecting git to notice a tree change, even though it never even
> > examined the tree in the first place (because you didn't give it a tree
> > or index filter).
>
> When git-filter-branch(1) says "If you have any grafts
Hi Jeff,
I've created a gist with the script
https://gist.github.com/anatolyborodin/6505a364a68584f13846
I've added some changes and a second test (will be discussed in the
comments).
Jeff King wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or not. The "empty commit" check works by
> checking the tre
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:46:40PM +, Anatoly Borodin wrote:
> The `git replace` makes the second commit empty (use the file content from
> the first commit). It should disappear after `git filter-branch`, but it
> doesn't happen.
>
> Bug 1: the empty commit stays.
I'm not sure if this is a
Hi All!
There are two bugs in `git filter-branch`, present in the most recent
versions (d10e2cb9d0299a26f43d57dd5bdcf2b3f86a30b3), as well as in the old
ones (I couldn't find a version where it works properly).
The script:
#!/bin/sh
set -e
GIT_EXEC_PATH=/tmp/git
export GIT_EXEC_PATH
GIT=$GIT_E
4 matches
Mail list logo
