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?
Sorry, this was on my to-review list but the sha1 stuff has been much more exciting. :) The behavior that Devin proposes is what I would have expected to happen. Between "prune-existing-empty" and "prune-became-empty", I've never had a use for the distinction. But as I think this is similar to the way cherry-pick distinguished between "redundant" and "empty", I guess some people have. I agree that it should be a new, separate option, as it's orthogonal to dealing with the root commit (i.e., somebody is equally likely to want to preserve an already-empty commit from the middle of history). 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. -Peff
