"Devin J. Pohly" <djpo...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Devin J. Pohly" <djpo...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also >> > TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch, it seems >> > reasonable that someone might want to leave it in the filtered branch as >> > an empty commit while pruning empt*ied* commits. I would imagine that >> > as another option (--prune-newly-empty?). >> >> I was hoping to hear from others who may care about filter-branch to >> comment on this topic to help me decide, but I haven't heard >> anything, so here is my tentative thinking. >> >> I am leaning to: >> >> * Take your series as-is, which would mean --prune-empty will >> change the behaviour to unconditionally lose the empty root. >> >> * Then, people who care deeply about it can add a new option that >> prunes commits that become empty while keeping the originally >> empty ones. >> >> Thoughts? > > Sounds good to me. I would be willing to work on a new option if needed > (to "atone" for changing existing behavior), so you can loop me in if > there are any complaints.
Thanks. I'll wait for others who know filter-branch better than me to say something for a few days before doing anything, though.
