From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573B320279 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751595AbdCBWet (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:34:49 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65443 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750915AbdCBWes (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:34:48 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2949D85D1C; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:39:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=g0e/0wYrcjUyZ3C1p7xWof9j57M=; b=ATDa/V Cq7sMf0IsqVdc5v9WDvqKA3EehLlXrYBA1VWLOczzqs64ulZjwH6nc2wgplRiwzn cGIAujycB53B+CQe/k3FbVac+a0pxDzN6rL9o4wPX+nn7O46Ms+8J+VpMpUdfyyu uJuuieHTc7u/MH2O/9E0KHF3RDPoqVc7axTWM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qJlQM+7FX1L4yL9q4LO/jn69y7KlJexm 26zQ8PWWk67pglLrrVYOvjC9UtdGR830+CblVWanAMJyjkH0u32oQ0Gcdfm3LWgv 10/M7msGnsIrrrgLHvVmaXrMFSugXwv36iYjX87Xwah/Fr4AWUv7xj6G+iNfw5xM JvTR7/kOnFI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFC785D1B; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40A6485D19; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:39:20 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Devin J. Pohly" Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Charles Bailey , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits References: <20170223082736.31283-1-djpohly@gmail.com> <20170223082736.31283-3-djpohly@gmail.com> <20170223213333.GA3490@prospect.localdomain> <20170302211804.GB3490@prospect.localdomain> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:39:19 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170302211804.GB3490@prospect.localdomain> (Devin J. Pohly's message of "Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:18:04 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B1B891E0-FF90-11E6-B2D9-97B1B46B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "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 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.