9df53c5de6
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>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| buildsystems | ||
| coccinelle | ||
| completion | ||
| contacts | ||
| credential | ||
| diff-highlight | ||
| emacs | ||
| examples | ||
| fast-import | ||
| git-jump | ||
| git-shell-commands | ||
| hg-to-git | ||
| hooks | ||
| long-running-filter | ||
| mw-to-git | ||
| persistent-https | ||
| remote-helpers | ||
| stats | ||
| subtree | ||
| svn-fe | ||
| thunderbird-patch-inline | ||
| update-unicode | ||
| vscode | ||
| workdir | ||
| coverage-diff.sh | ||
| git-resurrect.sh | ||
| README | ||
| remotes2config.sh | ||
| rerere-train.sh | ||
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc