Show 25 quoted lines
><rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
>> (I am a little nervous about this advice, hoping others will chime in
>> and correct anything wrong here)
>>
>> While this will change the commit hashes, AFAIK, the other metadata is
>> preserved, including date, author, and committer. Set up the specific
>> keys/settings in ssh-agent and the user.signingKey value, then:
>>
>> git filter-branch --commit-filter 'git commit-tree -S "$@";'
>> <FROM-COMMIT>..<TO-COMMIT>
>>
>> Others might have a better way of doing this or may tell me this will
>> not work. Test this before you do it. I have not done this operation
>> before. You do need to start from the oldest commit going forward
>> otherwise I think that filter-branch will (should!) invalidate child
>> commits. I suspect this is going to be a rather lengthy script to build and run.
>
>Given the size of our history (several orders of magnitude larger than linux.git),
>using git-filter-branch after the fact is certainly not ideal. The replay already takes
>a week to run (we're IO-bound). We'd rather want to extend git-fast-import to
>allow signing commits instead
>-- which comes back to our shared 'nervousness' about this approach in
>general: I don't know that Git should endorse this as a standard option.
>
>But yes -- hoping others can chime in with more thoughts :-)
I have another reluctant suggestion, but it depends on your industry, regulations, and other factors. In some sectors, there is a requirement to keep only some period of time worth of history. In fact, in some settings, keeping user identifying information beyond, say 7 years, actually is problematic. Pruning your history may be not only an option but required. An alternative is to use filter-branch to essentially tokenize the identities of past authors and keep those in a electronic vault somewhere. I have customers who are interpreting GDPR-like rules just such as situation, where employees gone 7 years ago and cannot be retained, by name, in the repos. I am not personally happy about that, because my own repo-OCD demands that I know exactly who did what until the end of time, but according to them, it actually violates the local regulations. I'm sure you have had conversations with lawyers, yes? ☹
rsbecker@nexbridge.com <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>