diff options
author | Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> | 2019-09-05 01:32:38 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | 2019-09-05 23:01:48 +0300 |
commit | 9df53c5de6e687df9cd7b36e633360178b65a0ef (patch) | |
tree | d033d2174071ee7270a30135f1dc69c1ea6042be /Documentation/git-rebase.txt | |
parent | 7b6ad979391d908698cdef9358d3e13979e15c9f (diff) |
Recommend git-filter-repo instead of git-filter-branch
filter-branch suffers from a deluge of disguised dangers that disfigure
history rewrites (i.e. deviate from the deliberate changes). Many of
these problems are unobtrusive and can easily go undiscovered until the
new repository is in use. This can result in problems ranging from an
even messier history than what led folks to filter-branch in the first
place, to data loss or corruption. These issues cannot be backward
compatibly fixed, so add a warning to both filter-branch and its manpage
recommending that another tool (such as filter-repo) be used instead.
Also, update other manpages that referenced filter-branch. Several of
these needed updates even if we could continue recommending
filter-branch, either due to implying that something was unique to
filter-branch when it applied more generally to all history rewriting
tools (e.g. BFG, reposurgeon, fast-import, filter-repo), or because
something about filter-branch was used as an example despite other more
commonly known examples now existing. Reword these sections to fix
these issues and to avoid recommending filter-branch.
Finally, remove the section explaining BFG Repo Cleaner as an
alternative to filter-branch. I feel somewhat bad about this,
especially since I feel like I learned so much from BFG that I put to
good use in filter-repo (which is much more than I can say for
filter-branch), but keeping that section presented a few problems:
* In order to recommend that people quit using filter-branch, we need
to provide them a recomendation for something else to use that
can handle all the same types of rewrites. To my knowledge,
filter-repo is the only such tool. So it needs to be mentioned.
* I don't want to give conflicting recommendations to users
* If we recommend two tools, we shouldn't expect users to learn both
and pick which one to use; we should explain which problems one
can solve that the other can't or when one is much faster than
the other.
* BFG and filter-repo have similar performance
* All filtering types that BFG can do, filter-repo can also do. In
fact, filter-repo comes with a reimplementation of BFG named
bfg-ish which provides the same user-interface as BFG but with
several bugfixes and new features that are hard to implement in
BFG due to its technical underpinnings.
While I could still mention both tools, it seems like I would need to
provide some kind of comparison and I would ultimately just say that
filter-repo can do everything BFG can, so ultimately it seems that it
is just better to remove that section altogether.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/git-rebase.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/git-rebase.txt | 3 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt index 6156609cf7..a8cfc0ad82 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt @@ -832,7 +832,8 @@ Hard case: The changes are not the same.:: This happens if the 'subsystem' rebase had conflicts, or used `--interactive` to omit, edit, squash, or fixup commits; or if the upstream used one of `commit --amend`, `reset`, or - `filter-branch`. + a full history rewriting command like + https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo[`filter-repo`]. The easy case |