Web lists-archives.com

RE: git filter-branch re-write history over a range of commits did notwork





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:34 PM
> To: LU Chuck <Chuck.LU@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; chuck.lu@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: git filter-branch re-write history over a range of commits did notwork
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> On 28/05/2019 08:10, LU Chuck wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Copying and pasting examples literally is dangerous. You should know
> >> what you are doing.
> >>
> >> "..." is a revision range that computes the mergebase between HEAD
> >> and HEAD, which is (surprise!) HEAD, and then includes the two end
> >> points, but excludes everything below the mergebase. So, the revision
> >> specification that your command ends up with is
> >>
> >>       HEAD HEAD ^HEAD ^67d9d9 f70bf4
> >>
> >> Which is empty if f70bf4 is an ancestor of HEAD.
> > [LU Chuck] Sorry, I can't understand this part, did you have an documentation
> about the explanation for ...?
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git-2Dscm.com_docs_git
> revisions-23Documentation_gitrevisions.txt-2DTheem82308203emthree-2DdotS
> ymmetricDifferenceNotation&d=DwICaQ&c=O17m6UdqOAIZh9XQ8pTl4g&r=VcG
> eIeOZ_8_zlrQNSboenYltfxGNIXN_qG6VpZgXVRk&m=_rDozHXubCFkEsfhMr2QlaP
> n-h_Khfqa3RG0cNmrSxo&s=qdyaJNy6nkAe-4ufeS4o1NdvgoqQQhZDmDjmjQK9k
> Ro&e=
[LU Chuck] Thanks for your documentation about the explanation. Previously I read another documentation https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Revision-Selection#Commit-Ranges.  
          It's weird the three dots has two different explanation, maybe there should a place to collect these two explanation for three dots.
> >           "computes the mergebase between HEAD and HEAD" I have no idea
> about this. And you also talked about mergebase, but in my situation, there is only
> one branch with 5 commits. I did not have a mergebase.
> >           You can check the detail description below.
> When there is no specific revisions around the three dots then HEAD is assumed
> (to save typing)
[LU Chuck] I got you here, that's why you ask me remove the three dots before, right?
> 
> [snipping the comments on the alternate script]