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 D97B41F5FB for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 19:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753244AbdCBTgc (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:36:32 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51064 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752090AbdCBTg1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:36:27 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4060F84896; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:36:20 -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=goDbw3TNGzDupihSY2yl/wPrekM=; b=Nfbo7F m2pKfogTKxzoqPjRt27/vSZioq1t+GRc2R1GGWsROF/AoL8vGXGj7c8EEwMHbLN6 OW2O1BCra22XC4TauxIYqBPp02cDygWNf6jga+08z+13FTJr1bwdLNxLmxXuXj6G OSrdQVpyjWvT5F0WnT7PXSJdZfpwJ92poT/ZY= 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=DrVm1oJ8mwpnYBynH29s7lYwlucLpn5p zMI2/fzAsseE/CnTmxzikBN1dK/ZiHffXFX+u1WnaJ+OLC46TuGsMbQhQ/MOTWpR zqwzRk2ws9yAvw5JN1lCeeoRo23+kuGEluKRygO7qzZ51XZnKas05r2Xv/yt2TXy 3/FvYNYsNB0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3173084895; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:36:20 -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 82B8C84892; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:36:19 -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> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 11:36:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170223213333.GA3490@prospect.localdomain> (Devin J. Pohly's message of "Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:33:33 -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: 827283AC-FF7F-11E6-AD8B-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: > 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?