Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any
commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the
tree was nonempty. The new commit would then be recorded in the
filter-branch revision map, and subsequent commits which leave the tree
untouched would be c
"Devin J. Pohly" writes:
> Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any
> commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the
> tree was nonempty. The new commit would then be recorded in the
> filter-branch revision map, and subsequent commits which
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:17:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Devin J. Pohly" writes:
>
> > Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any
> > commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the
> > tree was nonempty. The new commit would then be r
"Devin J. Pohly" 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
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Devin J. Pohly" 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 filt
"Devin J. Pohly" writes:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Devin J. Pohly" 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
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Devin J. Pohly" 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
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Devin J. Pohly" 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 fil
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:55:35AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> The only objectionable thing I noticed in the test additions is that
> the early ones should be marked test_expect_failure until the fix from
> 3/4 flips them to "success". Otherwise it breaks bisectability.
>
> -Peff
Good point. Will
Jeff King writes:
> The change to filter-branch itself looks obviously correct. The only
> objectionable thing I noticed in the test additions is that the early
> ones should be marked test_expect_failure until the fix from 3/4 flips
> them to "success". Otherwise it breaks bisectability.
I'll s
10 matches
Mail list logo