|
|
|
@ -16,6 +16,19 @@ SYNOPSIS
|
|
|
|
|
[--original <namespace>] [-d <directory>] [-f | --force]
|
|
|
|
|
[--state-branch <branch>] [--] [<rev-list options>...]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WARNING
|
|
|
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
|
'git filter-branch' has a plethora of pitfalls that can produce non-obvious
|
|
|
|
|
manglings of the intended history rewrite (and can leave you with little
|
|
|
|
|
time to investigate such problems since it has such abysmal performance).
|
|
|
|
|
These safety and performance issues cannot be backward compatibly fixed and
|
|
|
|
|
as such, its use is not recommended. Please use an alternative history
|
|
|
|
|
filtering tool such as https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/[git
|
|
|
|
|
filter-repo]. If you still need to use 'git filter-branch', please
|
|
|
|
|
carefully read <<SAFETY>> (and <<PERFORMANCE>>) to learn about the land
|
|
|
|
|
mines of filter-branch, and then vigilantly avoid as many of the hazards
|
|
|
|
|
listed there as reasonably possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION
|
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
|
Lets you rewrite Git revision history by rewriting the branches mentioned
|
|
|
|
@ -445,36 +458,236 @@ warned.
|
|
|
|
|
(or if your git-gc is not new enough to support arguments to
|
|
|
|
|
`--prune`, use `git repack -ad; git prune` instead).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
|
[[PERFORMANCE]]
|
|
|
|
|
PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch allows you to make complex shell-scripted rewrites
|
|
|
|
|
of your Git history, but you probably don't need this flexibility if
|
|
|
|
|
you're simply _removing unwanted data_ like large files or passwords.
|
|
|
|
|
For those operations you may want to consider
|
|
|
|
|
http://rtyley.github.io/bfg-repo-cleaner/[The BFG Repo-Cleaner],
|
|
|
|
|
a JVM-based alternative to git-filter-branch, typically at least
|
|
|
|
|
10-50x faster for those use-cases, and with quite different
|
|
|
|
|
characteristics:
|
|
|
|
|
The performance of git-filter-branch is glacially slow; its design makes it
|
|
|
|
|
impossible for a backward-compatible implementation to ever be fast:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Any particular version of a file is cleaned exactly _once_. The BFG,
|
|
|
|
|
unlike git-filter-branch, does not give you the opportunity to
|
|
|
|
|
handle a file differently based on where or when it was committed
|
|
|
|
|
within your history. This constraint gives the core performance
|
|
|
|
|
benefit of The BFG, and is well-suited to the task of cleansing bad
|
|
|
|
|
data - you don't care _where_ the bad data is, you just want it
|
|
|
|
|
_gone_.
|
|
|
|
|
* In editing files, git-filter-branch by design checks out each and
|
|
|
|
|
every commit as it existed in the original repo. If your repo has 10\^5
|
|
|
|
|
files and 10\^5 commits, but each commit only modifies 5 files, then
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch will make you do 10\^10 modifications, despite only
|
|
|
|
|
having (at most) 5*10^5 unique blobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* By default The BFG takes full advantage of multi-core machines,
|
|
|
|
|
cleansing commit file-trees in parallel. git-filter-branch cleans
|
|
|
|
|
commits sequentially (i.e. in a single-threaded manner), though it
|
|
|
|
|
_is_ possible to write filters that include their own parallelism,
|
|
|
|
|
in the scripts executed against each commit.
|
|
|
|
|
* If you try and cheat and try to make git-filter-branch only work on
|
|
|
|
|
files modified in a commit, then two things happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The http://rtyley.github.io/bfg-repo-cleaner/#examples[command options]
|
|
|
|
|
are much more restrictive than git-filter branch, and dedicated just
|
|
|
|
|
to the tasks of removing unwanted data- e.g:
|
|
|
|
|
`--strip-blobs-bigger-than 1M`.
|
|
|
|
|
** you run into problems with deletions whenever the user is simply
|
|
|
|
|
trying to rename files (because attempting to delete files that
|
|
|
|
|
don't exist looks like a no-op; it takes some chicanery to remap
|
|
|
|
|
deletes across file renames when the renames happen via arbitrary
|
|
|
|
|
user-provided shell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** even if you succeed at the map-deletes-for-renames chicanery, you
|
|
|
|
|
still technically violate backward compatibility because users are
|
|
|
|
|
allowed to filter files in ways that depend upon topology of
|
|
|
|
|
commits instead of filtering solely based on file contents or names
|
|
|
|
|
(though this has not been observed in the wild).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Even if you don't need to edit files but only want to e.g. rename or
|
|
|
|
|
remove some and thus can avoid checking out each file (i.e. you can use
|
|
|
|
|
--index-filter), you still are passing shell snippets for your filters.
|
|
|
|
|
This means that for every commit, you have to have a prepared git repo
|
|
|
|
|
where those filters can be run. That's a significant setup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Further, several additional files are created or updated per commit by
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch. Some of these are for supporting the convenience
|
|
|
|
|
functions provided by git-filter-branch (such as map()), while others
|
|
|
|
|
are for keeping track of internal state (but could have also been
|
|
|
|
|
accessed by user filters; one of git-filter-branch's regression tests
|
|
|
|
|
does so). This essentially amounts to using the filesystem as an IPC
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism between git-filter-branch and the user-provided filters.
|
|
|
|
|
Disks tend to be a slow IPC mechanism, and writing these files also
|
|
|
|
|
effectively represents a forced synchronization point between separate
|
|
|
|
|
processes that we hit with every commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The user-provided shell commands will likely involve a pipeline of
|
|
|
|
|
commands, resulting in the creation of many processes per commit.
|
|
|
|
|
Creating and running another process takes a widely varying amount of
|
|
|
|
|
time between operating systems, but on any platform it is very slow
|
|
|
|
|
relative to invoking a function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* git-filter-branch itself is written in shell, which is kind of slow.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the one performance issue that could be backward-compatibly
|
|
|
|
|
fixed, but compared to the above problems that are intrinsic to the
|
|
|
|
|
design of git-filter-branch, the language of the tool itself is a
|
|
|
|
|
relatively minor issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Side note: Unfortunately, people tend to fixate on the
|
|
|
|
|
written-in-shell aspect and periodically ask if git-filter-branch
|
|
|
|
|
could be rewritten in another language to fix the performance
|
|
|
|
|
issues. Not only does that ignore the bigger intrinsic problems
|
|
|
|
|
with the design, it'd help less than you'd expect: if
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch itself were not shell, then the convenience
|
|
|
|
|
functions (map(), skip_commit(), etc) and the `--setup` argument
|
|
|
|
|
could no longer be executed once at the beginning of the program
|
|
|
|
|
but would instead need to be prepended to every user filter (and
|
|
|
|
|
thus re-executed with every commit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/[git filter-repo] tool is
|
|
|
|
|
an alternative to git-filter-branch which does not suffer from these
|
|
|
|
|
performance problems or the safety problems (mentioned below). For those
|
|
|
|
|
with existing tooling which relies upon git-filter-branch, 'git
|
|
|
|
|
repo-filter' also provides
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/blob/master/contrib/filter-repo-demos/filter-lamely[filter-lamely],
|
|
|
|
|
a drop-in git-filter-branch replacement (with a few caveats). While
|
|
|
|
|
filter-lamely suffers from all the same safety issues as
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch, it at least ameloriates the performance issues a
|
|
|
|
|
little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[[SAFETY]]
|
|
|
|
|
SAFETY
|
|
|
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch is riddled with gotchas resulting in various ways to
|
|
|
|
|
easily corrupt repos or end up with a mess worse than what you started
|
|
|
|
|
with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Someone can have a set of "working and tested filters" which they
|
|
|
|
|
document or provide to a coworker, who then runs them on a different OS
|
|
|
|
|
where the same commands are not working/tested (some examples in the
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch manpage are also affected by this). BSD vs. GNU
|
|
|
|
|
userland differences can really bite. If lucky, error messages are
|
|
|
|
|
spewed. But just as likely, the commands either don't do the filtering
|
|
|
|
|
requested, or silently corrupt by making some unwanted change. The
|
|
|
|
|
unwanted change may only affect a few commits, so it's not necessarily
|
|
|
|
|
obvious either. (The fact that problems won't necessarily be obvious
|
|
|
|
|
means they are likely to go unnoticed until the rewritten history is in
|
|
|
|
|
use for quite a while, at which point it's really hard to justify
|
|
|
|
|
another flag-day for another rewrite.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Filenames with spaces are often mishandled by shell snippets since
|
|
|
|
|
they cause problems for shell pipelines. Not everyone is familiar with
|
|
|
|
|
find -print0, xargs -0, git-ls-files -z, etc. Even people who are
|
|
|
|
|
familiar with these may assume such flags are not relevant because
|
|
|
|
|
someone else renamed any such files in their repo back before the person
|
|
|
|
|
doing the filtering joined the project. And often, even those familiar
|
|
|
|
|
with handling arguments with spaces may not do so just because they
|
|
|
|
|
aren't in the mindset of thinking about everything that could possibly
|
|
|
|
|
go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Non-ascii filenames can be silently removed despite being in a desired
|
|
|
|
|
directory. Keeping only wanted paths is often done using pipelines like
|
|
|
|
|
`git ls-files | grep -v ^WANTED_DIR/ | xargs git rm`. ls-files will
|
|
|
|
|
only quote filenames if needed, so folks may not notice that one of the
|
|
|
|
|
files didn't match the regex (at least not until it's much too late).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, someone who knows about core.quotePath can avoid this (unless they
|
|
|
|
|
have other special characters like \t, \n, or "), and people who use
|
|
|
|
|
ls-files -z with something other than grep can avoid this, but that
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't mean they will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Similarly, when moving files around, one can find that filenames with
|
|
|
|
|
non-ascii or special characters end up in a different directory, one
|
|
|
|
|
that includes a double quote character. (This is technically the same
|
|
|
|
|
issue as above with quoting, but perhaps an interesting different way
|
|
|
|
|
that it can and has manifested as a problem.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* It's far too easy to accidentally mix up old and new history. It's
|
|
|
|
|
still possible with any tool, but git-filter-branch almost invites it.
|
|
|
|
|
If lucky, the only downside is users getting frustrated that they don't
|
|
|
|
|
know how to shrink their repo and remove the old stuff. If unlucky,
|
|
|
|
|
they merge old and new history and end up with multiple "copies" of each
|
|
|
|
|
commit, some of which have unwanted or sensitive files and others which
|
|
|
|
|
don't. This comes about in multiple different ways:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** the default to only doing a partial history rewrite ('--all' is not
|
|
|
|
|
the default and few examples show it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** the fact that there's no automatic post-run cleanup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** the fact that --tag-name-filter (when used to rename tags) doesn't
|
|
|
|
|
remove the old tags but just adds new ones with the new name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** the fact that little educational information is provided to inform
|
|
|
|
|
users of the ramifications of a rewrite and how to avoid mixing old
|
|
|
|
|
and new history. For example, this man page discusses how users
|
|
|
|
|
need to understand that they need to rebase their changes for all
|
|
|
|
|
their branches on top of new history (or delete and reclone), but
|
|
|
|
|
that's only one of multiple concerns to consider. See the
|
|
|
|
|
"DISCUSSION" section of the git filter-repo manual page for more
|
|
|
|
|
details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Annotated tags can be accidentally converted to lightweight tags, due
|
|
|
|
|
to either of two issues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Someone can do a history rewrite, realize they messed up, restore
|
|
|
|
|
from the backups in refs/original/, and then redo their
|
|
|
|
|
git-filter-branch command. (The backup in refs/original/ is not a
|
|
|
|
|
real backup; it dereferences tags first.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Running git-filter-branch with either --tags or --all in your
|
|
|
|
|
<rev-list options>. In order to retain annotated tags as
|
|
|
|
|
annotated, you must use --tag-name-filter (and must not have
|
|
|
|
|
restored from refs/original/ in a previously botched rewrite).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Any commit messages that specify an encoding will become corrupted
|
|
|
|
|
by the rewrite; git-filter-branch ignores the encoding, takes the original
|
|
|
|
|
bytes, and feeds it to commit-tree without telling it the proper
|
|
|
|
|
encoding. (This happens whether or not --msg-filter is used.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Commit messages (even if they are all UTF-8) by default become
|
|
|
|
|
corrupted due to not being updated -- any references to other commit
|
|
|
|
|
hashes in commit messages will now refer to no-longer-extant commits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* There are no facilities for helping users find what unwanted crud they
|
|
|
|
|
should delete, which means they are much more likely to have incomplete
|
|
|
|
|
or partial cleanups that sometimes result in confusion and people
|
|
|
|
|
wasting time trying to understand. (For example, folks tend to just
|
|
|
|
|
look for big files to delete instead of big directories or extensions,
|
|
|
|
|
and once they do so, then sometime later folks using the new repository
|
|
|
|
|
who are going through history will notice a build artifact directory
|
|
|
|
|
that has some files but not others, or a cache of dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
(node_modules or similar) which couldn't have ever been functional since
|
|
|
|
|
it's missing some files.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If --prune-empty isn't specified, then the filtering process can
|
|
|
|
|
create hoards of confusing empty commits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If --prune-empty is specified, then intentionally placed empty
|
|
|
|
|
commits from before the filtering operation are also pruned instead of
|
|
|
|
|
just pruning commits that became empty due to filtering rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If --prune empty is specified, sometimes empty commits are missed
|
|
|
|
|
and left around anyway (a somewhat rare bug, but it happens...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A minor issue, but users who have a goal to update all names and
|
|
|
|
|
emails in a repository may be led to --env-filter which will only update
|
|
|
|
|
authors and committers, missing taggers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If the user provides a --tag-name-filter that maps multiple tags to
|
|
|
|
|
the same name, no warning or error is provided; git-filter-branch simply
|
|
|
|
|
overwrites each tag in some undocumented pre-defined order resulting in
|
|
|
|
|
only one tag at the end. (A git-filter-branch regression test requires
|
|
|
|
|
this surprising behavior.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the poor performance of git-filter-branch often leads to safety
|
|
|
|
|
issues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Coming up with the correct shell snippet to do the filtering you want
|
|
|
|
|
is sometimes difficult unless you're just doing a trivial modification
|
|
|
|
|
such as deleting a couple files. Unfortunately, people often learn if
|
|
|
|
|
the snippet is right or wrong by trying it out, but the rightness or
|
|
|
|
|
wrongness can vary depending on special circumstances (spaces in
|
|
|
|
|
filenames, non-ascii filenames, funny author names or emails, invalid
|
|
|
|
|
timezones, presence of grafts or replace objects, etc.), meaning they
|
|
|
|
|
may have to wait a long time, hit an error, then restart. The
|
|
|
|
|
performance of git-filter-branch is so bad that this cycle is painful,
|
|
|
|
|
reducing the time available to carefully re-check (to say nothing about
|
|
|
|
|
what it does to the patience of the person doing the rewrite even if
|
|
|
|
|
they do technically have more time available). This problem is extra
|
|
|
|
|
compounded because errors from broken filters may not be shown for a
|
|
|
|
|
long time and/or get lost in a sea of output. Even worse, broken
|
|
|
|
|
filters often just result in silent incorrect rewrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* To top it all off, even when users finally find working commands, they
|
|
|
|
|
naturally want to share them. But they may be unaware that their repo
|
|
|
|
|
didn't have some special cases that someone else's does. So, when
|
|
|
|
|
someone else with a different repository runs the same commands, they
|
|
|
|
|
get hit by the problems above. Or, the user just runs commands that
|
|
|
|
|
really were vetted for special cases, but they run it on a different OS
|
|
|
|
|
where it doesn't work, as noted above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GIT
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|