Re: Import/Export as a fast way to purge files from Git?

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:08 AM Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I recently had to purge files from large Git repos (many files, many commits).
>> The usual recommendation is to use `git filter-branch --index-filter` to purge
>> files. However, this is *very* slow for large repos (e.g. it takes 45min to
>> remove the `builtin` directory from git core). I realized that I can remove
>> files *way* faster by exporting the repo, removing the file references,
>> and then importing the repo (see Perl script below, it takes ~30sec to remove
>> the `builtin` directory from git core). Do you see any problem with this
>> approach?
> 
> It looks like others have pointed you at other tools, and you're
> already shifting to that route.  But I think it's a useful question to
> answer more generally, so for those that are really curious...
> 
> 
> The basic approach is fine, though if you try to extend it much you
> can run into a few possible edge/corner cases (more on that below).
> I've been using this basic approach for years and even created a
> mini-python library[1] designed specifically to allow people to create
> "fast-filters", used as
>   git fast-export <options> | your-fast-filter | git fast-import <options>
> 
> But that library didn't really take off; even I have rarely used it,
> often opting for filter-branch despite its horrible performance or a
> simple fast-export | long-sed-command | fast-import (with some extra
> pre-checking to make sure the sed wouldn't unintentionally munge other
> data).  BFG is great, as long as you're only interested in removing a
> few big items, but otherwise doesn't seem very useful (to be fair,
> it's very upfront about only wanting to solve that problem).
> Recently, due to continuing questions on filter-branch and folks still
> getting confused with it, I looked at existing tools, decided I didn't
> think any quite fit, and started looking into converting
> git_fast_filter into a filter-branch-like tool instead of just a
> libary.  Found some bugs and missing features in fast-export along the
> way (and have some patches I still need to send in).  But I kind of
> got stuck -- if the tool is in python, will that limit adoption too
> much?  It'd be kind of nice to have this tool in core git.  But I kind
> of like leaving open the possibility of using it as a tool _or_ as a
> library, the latter for the special cases where case-specific
> programmatic filtering is needed.  But a developer-convenience library
> makes almost no sense unless in a higher level language, such as
> python.  I'm still trying to make up my mind about what I want (and
> what others might want), and have been kind of blocking on that.  (If
> others have opinions, I'm all ears.)

> Anyway, the edge/corner cases you can watch out for:
> 
>  - Signed tags are a problem; you may need to specify
> --signed-tags=strip to fast-export
> 
>  - References to other commits in your commit messages will now be
> incorrect.  I think a good tool should either default to rewriting
> commit ids in commit messages or at least have an option to do so
> (BFG does this; filter-branch doesn't; fast-export format makes it
> really hard for a filter based on it to do so)
> 
>  - If the paths you remove are the only paths modified in a commit,
> the commit can become empty.  If you're only filtering a few paths
> out, this might be nothing more than a minor inconvenience for you.
> However, if you're trying to prune directories (and perhaps several
> toplevel ones), then it can be extremely annoying to have a new
> history with the vast majority of all commits being empty.
> (filter-branch has an option for this; BFG does not; tools based on
> fast-export output can do it with sufficient effort).
> 
>  - If you start pruning empty commits, you have to worry about
> rewriting branches and tags to remaining parents.  This _might_ happen
> for free depending on your history's structure and the fast-export
> stream, but to be correct in general you will have to specify the new
> commit for some branches or tags.
> 
>  - If you start pruning empty commits, you have to decide whether to
> allow pruning of merge commits.  Your first reaction might be to not
> allow it, but if one parent and its entire history are all pruned,
> then transforming the merge commit to a normal commit and then
> considering whether it is empty and allowing it to be pruned is much
> better.
> 
>  - If you start pruning empty commits, you also have to worry about
> history topology changing, beyond the all-ancestors-empty case above.
> For example, the last non-empty commit in the ancestry of a merge on
> both sides may be the same commit, making the merge-commit have the
> same parent twice.  Should the duplicate parent be de-duped,
> transforming the commit into a normal non-merge commit?  (I'd say yes
> -- this commit is likely to be empty and prunable once you do so, but
> I'm not sure everyone would agree with converting a merge commit to a
> non-merge.)  Similarly, what if the rewritten parents of a merge have
> one parent that is the direct ancestor of another?  Can the extra
> unnecessary parent be removed as a parent?  (And again, such a commit
> is likely to become empty and be prunable itself.)
> 
>  - If you try to avoid the extra work involved with pruning empty
> commits by passing path-specifiers as rev-list-args to fast-export,
> and use the --tag-of-filtered-object=rewrite option if needed, then
> depending on the topology you can hit any of three bugs: an outright
> die() (despite the --tag-of-filtered-object=rewrite), a branch being
> reset to a non-existent mark (causing fast-import to die), or find
> that a ref which you explicitly requested to be part of the export is
> silently omitted from the stream.  (granted, these aren't fundamental
> issues; they're just bugs in fast-export that I seem to have been the
> first to find.)
> 
>  -  filter-branch has a nice ability to rewrite only the last few
> commits using a range specifier like HEAD~10..HEAD.  Trying the same
> with fast-export will get you a history with only 10 commits, the
> first of which squashes all early history together.  Trying to
> duplicate the filter-branch behavior can be done, but it requires
> multiple exports with different args and usage of --export-marks and
> --import-marks; it's cumbersome and somewhat non-obvious.
> 
>  - some filters are difficult; e.g. if you want to mimick
> filter-branch's --parent-filter, or BFG's --strip-blobs-with-ids, you
> run into the issue that the fast-export stream doesn't provide the
> original sha1sums for commits or blobs and there's no easy way for you
> to associate it with the given mark.