Re: Status update - version 5.2.2, cvs->git conversion, plans

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 11/16/2017 03:14 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:50:06 PM PST Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>> On 11/16/2017 02:07 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> 
>>> The remaining issue is incorrectly converted timestamp and author attribution.
>>> I found a script that automates a recipe that is basically
>>>
>>> [from StackOverflow]
>>
>> What is the link, so we may see the context?
> 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3042437/change-commit-author-at-one-specific-commit/30737248
> 
>>> %%%%%%%%
>>> Assume for clarity of exposition that 03f482d6 is the commit
>>> whose author we are trying to replace, and 42627abe is the commit
>>> with the new author.
>>>
>>> Checkout the commit we are trying to modify.
>>>       git checkout 03f482d6
>>>
>>> Make the author change.
>>>       git commit --amend --author "New Author Name <New Author Email>"
>>>
>>> Replace the old commit with the new one locally.
>>>       git replace 03f482d6 42627abe
>>>
>>> Rewrite all future commits based on the replacement.
>>>       git filter-branch -- --all
>>>
>>> Remove the replacement for cleanliness.
>>>       git replace -d 03f482d6
>>>
>>> Push the new history (only use --force if the below fails, and only after
>>> sanity checking with git log and/or git diff).
>>>       git push --force-with-lease
>>> %%%%%%%%%
>>>
>>> However I tried using this recipe to make one change and it failed.
>>> The filter-branch step spit out progress updates for about half an hour
>>> and then died.   Repository too large or too complicated?
>>> Some issue with branch structure that is non-fatal form most purposes
>>> but trips up this specific operation?
>>> Whatever, it doesn't work.
>>
>> That doesn't seem like something one would typically want to do in a
>> functioning git repo.
> 
> 1) This is not typical
> 2) This is not [yet] a functioning git repo
> 
> We're looking for procedures  to set up a git repository in the first
> instance so that it contains a "history" of transactions that actually
> happened somewhere else in a foreign language subject to faulty
> translation.

OK, so it's not as simple as changing some text in the blob.dat file, 
but instead there should be some extra commits put in place?

git checkout 03f482d6
git commit --amend --author "New Author Name <New Author Email>"

I don't think the above works the way you are thinking.  --amend only 
applies to the most recent change, or possibly tip of a branch.

That link above is suggesting something like the following:  say there is

E
D
C
B
A

commits.  If I take the recent changes and temporarily rebase them 
(i.e., disconnect) to some indefinite location

         E
         D
         C

B
A

I can then treat B as though it is the most recent commit and apply the 
familiar --amend step.  There needs to be that disconnect before --amend 
can be applied.  The "git rebase -i B" is some funky interactive command 
that sequentially steps through changesets to allow altering a series of 
changesets.

Dan