From: Johannes Sixt Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:30:30 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter Message-ID: <4B9DFE36.3010707@viscovery.net> In-Reply-To: <87vdcy7zyu.fsf@jondo.cante.net> Jari Aalto schrieb: > Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto > --- > Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt > index 020028c..01bd0ad 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt > @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ OPTIONS > is then used as-is (new files are auto-added, disappeared files > are auto-removed - neither .gitignore files nor any other ignore > rules *HAVE ANY EFFECT*!). > ++ > +In case the is a shell script, provide an absolute path. > +An example: --tree-filter 'sh /path/to/filter.sh' Your choice of words is ambiguous: The --tree-filter is not the name of a shell script, but rather the shell script itself; the example you gave is just a shell script that happens to run only a shell on a file whose name must be specified as an absolute path. But doesn't the recommendation to use absolute paths apply not only to --tree-filters, but - to all filters; - to all references to external files that the filters make. I'm saying "recommendation" because git-filter-branch does not switch directory ad lib., so theoretically, it would be possible to use relative paths, even though the base of the relative paths would be non-obvious because it is from inside a temporary directory named ".git-rewrite/t" that is allocated next to .git. -- Hannes