threads / patch / 23019

patchgit-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

Subject: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

## tl;dr

5 messages between Mar 15, 2010 and Mar 15, 2010. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 4people: 3as markdown or json

Jari Aalto· Mar 15, 2010, 08:26 UTC · lore
Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
---
 Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt |    3 +++
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Show changes to Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt +3 −0
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 <command> is a shell script, provide an absolute path.
+An example: --tree-filter 'sh /path/to/filter.sh'
 
 --index-filter <command>::
 	This is the filter for rewriting the index.  It is similar to the

-- 
1.7.0
Johannes Sixt· Mar 15, 2010, 09:30 UTC · re: Jari Aalto · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

Jari Aalto schrieb:
Show 16 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
> ---
>  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 <command> 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
Jari Aalto· Mar 15, 2010, 11:32 UTC · re: Johannes Sixt · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Jari Aalto schrieb:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
>> ---
>>  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 <command> 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.
Full context was:
    --tree-filter <command>::
            This is the filter for rewriting the tree and its contents.
            The argument is evaluated in shell with the working
            directory set to the root of the checked out tree.  The new tree
            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 <command> is a shell script, provide an absolute path.
    An example: --tree-filter 'sh /path/to/filter.sh'
Show 7 quoted lines
>
> 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 don't know.
Show 5 quoted lines
> 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.

The problem was that I was trying to use a sell script for athe manipulation:

    cd <gir repo>
    git filter-branch  --tree-filter "sh ../filter.sh" HEAD
Which didn't. It needed absolute path:
    cd <gir repo>
    git filter-branch  --tree-filter "sh $(pwd)/filter.sh" HEAD

And that didn't work quit either. Script was run, but paths weren't no longer relative to the "working dir" I was cd'd to:

    rm  file \
        dir/file \
        dir/file \
        ..

So, someone please explain how the paths should be expressed in shell script and we'll improve the docs.

Jari
Johannes Sixt· Mar 15, 2010, 11:57 UTC · re: Jari Aalto · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

Jari Aalto schrieb:
Show 18 quoted lines
> J6t:
>> 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.
> 
> Full context was:
> 
>     --tree-filter <command>::
>             This is the filter for rewriting the tree and its contents.
>             The argument is evaluated in shell with the working
>             directory set to the root of the checked out tree.  The new tree
>             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 <command> is a shell script, provide an absolute path.
>     An example: --tree-filter 'sh /path/to/filter.sh'

I am complaining that you say "In case the <command> is a shell script...". There are no other cases; <command> is always a shell script.

What you meant to say is: "If you have your filter written down in a separate shell script, you must invoke it using an absolute path, for example, --tree-filter '/path/to/filter.sh'".

Show 8 quoted lines
>> 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 don't know.

It was a rethoric question. The hint about paths to files outside the working directory should go to the general description of filters.

Show 10 quoted lines
>     cd <gir repo>
>     git filter-branch  --tree-filter "sh $(pwd)/filter.sh" HEAD
> 
> And that didn't work quit either. Script was run, but paths weren't no
> longer relative to the "working dir" I was cd'd to:
> 
>     rm  file \
>         dir/file \
>         dir/file \
>         ..

I don't understand what you are trying to say, and I don't understand why it helped to run

  git filter-branch  --tree-filter "sh /the/git/repo/filter.sh" HEAD

when the above did not work - from filter-branch's POV there is simply no difference between the two invocations.

-- Hannes
PS: Please keep Cc list.
Junio C Hamano· Mar 15, 2010, 17:14 UTC · re: Johannes Sixt · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch.txt: mention absolute path for scripts in --tree-filter

Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Jari Aalto schrieb:
>> J6t:
>>> But doesn't the recommendation to use absolute paths apply not only to
>>> --tree-filters, but
>>> ...
>> I don't know.
>
> It was a rethoric question. The hint about paths to files outside the
> working directory should go to the general description of filters.
It is a good point.

Do people involved in filter-branch feel the implementation/interface is stable enough these days to allow us to add this to the first paragraph of the "Filters" description in the documentation? It currently talks about the environment variables exported for the use of filter programs, and "In which directory will my filter run? --- I need to know it when I want to reference filesystem entities using relative paths in my filter." would fit well.

← back to recent threads