Re: git: uh-oh

I wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Ok, found a bunch of those (78 to be exact).

> What I'd like is for those commits to vanish from the git log entirely.

> In a practical sense, what you should probably do is for each file
> mentioned in such a commit, cause the file's addition to the branch to
> become part of the first regular commit on the branch that touched that
> file. In the CVS history, at least, there always is such a commit
> (since we never did the cvs tag -b thing). I am not sure though whether
> the converted git history includes a touch of the file in that commit,

Given that there are only 78 such commits, it would not take too long to
manually prepare a list of which commit each file addition should get
moved into. Would that be a more sensible approach than trying to
extract the information from the git log?

regards, tom lane