Repository navigation
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathgit-filter-repo.txt
More file actions
1923 lines (1562 loc) · 82.3 KB
/
Copy pathgit-filter-repo.txt
File metadata and controls
1923 lines (1562 loc) · 82.3 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
// This file is NOT the documentation; it's the *source code* for it.
// Please follow the "user manual" link under
// https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo#how-do-i-use-it
// to access the actual documentation, or view another site that
// has compiled versions available, such as:
// https://www.mankier.com/1/git-filter-repo
git-filter-repo(1)
==================
NAME
----
git-filter-repo - Rewrite repository history
SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
'git filter-repo' --analyze
'git filter-repo' [<path_filtering_options>] [<content_filtering_options>]
[<ref_renaming_options>] [<commit_message_filtering_options>]
[<name_or_email_filtering_options>] [<parent_rewriting_options>]
[<generic_callback_options>] [<miscellaneous_options>]
DESCRIPTION
-----------
Rapidly rewrite entire repository history using user-specified filters.
This is a destructive operation which should not be used lightly; it
writes new commits, trees, tags, and blobs corresponding to (but
filtered from) the original objects in the repository, then deletes the
original history and leaves only the new. See <<DISCUSSION>> for more
details on the ramifications of using this tool. Several different
types of history rewrites are possible; examples include (but are not
limited to):
* stripping large files (or large directories or large extensions)
* stripping unwanted files by path
* extracting wanted paths and their history (stripping everything else)
* restructuring the file layout (such as moving all files into a
subdirectory in preparation for merging with another repo, making a
subdirectory become the new toplevel directory, or merging two
directories with independent filenames into one directory)
* renaming tags (also often in preparation for merging with another repo)
* replacing or removing sensitive text such as passwords
* making mailmap rewriting of user names or emails permanent
* making grafts or replacement refs permanent
* rewriting commit messages
Additionally, several concerns are handled automatically (many of these
can be overridden, but they are all on by default):
* rewriting (possibly abbreviated) hashes in commit messages to
refer to the new post-rewrite commit hashes
* pruning commits which become empty due to the above filters (also
handles edge cases like pruning of merge commits which become
degenerate and empty)
* rewriting stashes
* baking the changes made by refs/replace/ refs into the permanent
history and removing the replace refs
* stripping of original history to avoid mixing old and new history
* repacking the repository post-rewrite to shrink the repo for the
user
And additional facilities are available via a config option
* creating replace-refs (see linkgit:git-replace[1]) for old commit
hashes, which if manually pushed and fetched will allow users to
continue to refer to new commits using (unabbreviated) old commit
IDs
Also, it's worth noting that there is an important safety mechanism:
* abort if run from a repo that is not a fresh clone (to prevent
accidental data loss from rewriting local history that doesn't
exist anywhere else). See <<FRESHCLONE>>.
For those who know that there is large unwanted stuff in their history
and want help finding it, this command also
* provides an option to analyze a repository and generate reports that
can be useful in determining what to filter (or in determining
whether a separate filtering command was successful).
See also <<VERSATILITY>>, <<DISCUSSION>>, <<EXAMPLES>>, and
<<INTERNALS>>.
OPTIONS
-------
Analysis Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--analyze::
Analyze repository history and create a report that may be
useful in determining what to filter in a subsequent run (or
in determining if a previous filtering command did what you
wanted). Will not modify your repo.
Filtering based on paths (see also --filename-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These options specify the paths to select. Note that much like git
itself, renames are NOT followed so you may need to specify multiple
paths, e.g. `--path olddir/ --path newdir/`
--invert-paths::
Invert the selection of files from the specified
--path-{match,glob,regex} options below, i.e. only select
files matching none of those options.
--path-match <dir_or_file>::
--path <dir_or_file>::
Exact paths (files or directories) to include in filtered
history. Multiple --path options can be specified to get a
union of paths.
--path-glob <glob>::
Glob of paths to include in filtered history. Multiple
--path-glob options can be specified to get a union of paths.
--path-regex <regex>::
Regex of paths to include in filtered history. Multiple
--path-regex options can be specified to get a union of paths.
--use-base-name::
Match on file base name instead of full path from the top of
the repo. Incompatible with --path-rename, and incompatible
with matching against directory names.
Renaming based on paths (see also --filename-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: if you combine path filtering with path renaming, be aware that
a rename directive does not select paths, it only says how to
rename paths that are selected with the filters.
--path-rename <old_name:new_name>::
--path-rename-match <old_name:new_name>::
Path to rename; if filename or directory matches <old_name>
rename to <new_name>. Multiple --path-rename options can be
specified.
Path shortcuts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--paths-from-file <filename>::
Specify several path filtering and renaming directives, one
per line. Lines with `==>` in them specify path renames, and
lines can begin with `literal:` (the default), `glob:`, or
`regex:` to specify different matching styles. Blank lines
and lines starting with a `#` are ignored (if you have a
filename that you want to filter on that starts with
`literal:`, `#`, `glob:`, or `regex:`, then prefix the line
with 'literal:').
--subdirectory-filter <directory>::
Only look at history that touches the given subdirectory and
treat that directory as the project root. Equivalent to using
`--path <directory>/ --path-rename <directory>/:`
--to-subdirectory-filter <directory>::
Treat the project root as if it were under
<directory>. Equivalent to using `--path-rename :<directory>/`
Content editing filters (see also --blob-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--replace-text <expressions_file>::
A file with expressions that, if found, will be replaced. By
default, each expression is treated as literal text, but
`regex:` and `glob:` prefixes are supported. You can end the
line with `==>` and some replacement text to choose a
replacement choice other than the default of `***REMOVED***`.
--strip-blobs-bigger-than <size>::
Strip blobs (files) bigger than specified size (e.g. `5M`,
`2G`, etc)
--strip-blobs-with-ids <blob_id_filename>::
Read git object ids from each line of the given file, and
strip all of them from history
Renaming of refs (see also --refname-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--tag-rename <old:new>::
Rename tags starting with <old> to start with <new>. For example,
--tag-rename foo:bar will rename tag foo-1.2.3 to bar-1.2.3;
either <old> or <new> can be empty.
Filtering of commit messages (see also --message-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--replace-message <expressions_file>::
A file with expressions that, if found in commit or tag
messages, will be replaced. This file uses the same syntax as
--replace-text.
--preserve-commit-hashes::
By default, since commits are rewritten and thus gain new
hashes, references to old commit hashes in commit messages are
replaced with new commit hashes (abbreviated to the same
length as the old reference). Use this flag to turn off
updating commit hashes in commit messages.
--preserve-commit-encoding::
Do not reencode commit messages into UTF-8. By default, if the
commit object specifies an encoding for the commit message,
the message is re-encoded into UTF-8.
Filtering of names & emails (see also --name-callback and --email-callback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--mailmap <filename>::
Use specified mailmap file (see linkgit:git-shortlog[1] for details
on the format) when rewriting author, committer, and tagger names
and emails. If the specified file is part of git history,
historical versions of the file will be ignored; only the current
contents are consulted.
--use-mailmap::
Same as: '--mailmap .mailmap'
Parent rewriting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--replace-refs {delete-no-add, delete-and-add, update-no-add, update-or-add, update-and-add, old-default}::
How to handle replace refs (see git-replace(1)). Replace refs
can be added during the history rewrite as a way to allow
users to pass old commit IDs (from before git-filter-repo was
run) to git commands and have git know how to translate those
old commit IDs to the new (post-rewrite) commit IDs. Also,
replace refs that existed before the rewrite can either be
deleted or updated. The choices to pass to --replace-refs
thus need to specify both what to do with existing refs and
what to do with commit rewrites. Thus 'update-and-add' means
to update existing replace refs, and for any commit rewrite
(even if already pointed at by a replace ref) add a new
refs/replace/ reference to map from the old commit ID to the
new commit ID. The default is update-no-add, meaning update
existing replace refs but do not add any new ones. There is
also a special 'old-default' option for picking the default
used in versions prior to git-filter-repo-2.45, namely
'update-and-add' upon the first run of git-filter-repo in a
repository and 'update-or-add' if running git-filter-repo
again on a repository.
--prune-empty {always, auto, never}::
Whether to prune empty commits. 'auto' (the default) means
only prune commits which become empty (not commits which were
empty in the original repo, unless their parent was
pruned). When the parent of a commit is pruned, the first
non-pruned ancestor becomes the new parent.
--prune-degenerate {always, auto, never}::
Since merge commits are needed for history topology, they are
typically exempt from pruning. However, they can become
degenerate with the pruning of other commits (having fewer
than two parents, having one commit serve as both parents, or
having one parent as the ancestor of the other.) If such merge
commits have no file changes, they can be pruned. The default
('auto') is to only prune empty merge commits which become
degenerate (not which started as such).
--no-ff::
Even if the first parent is or becomes an ancestor of another
parent, do not prune it. This modifies how --prune-degenerate
behaves, and may be useful in projects who always use merge
--no-ff.
Generic callback code snippets
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--filename-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing filenames; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--message-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing messages (both commit messages and
tag messages); see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--name-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing names of people; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--email-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing emails addresses; see
<<CALLBACKS>>.
--refname-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing refnames; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--file-info-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing the combination of filename, mode,
and associated file contents; see <<CALLBACKS>. Note that when
--file-info-callback is specified, any replacements specified by
--replace-text will not be automatically applied; instead, you
have control within the --file-info-callback to choose which files
to apply those transformations to.
--blob-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing blob objects; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--commit-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing commit objects; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
--tag-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing tag objects; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
Note that lightweight tags have no tag object and thus are not
handled by this callback. The only thing you really could do with a
lightweight tag is rename it, but for that you should see
--refname-callback instead.
--reset-callback <function_body>::
Python code body for processing reset objects; see <<CALLBACKS>>.
Sensitive Data Removal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--sensitive-data-removal::
--sdr::
This rewrite is intended to remove sensitive data from a repository.
Gather extra information from the rewrite needed to provide
additional instructions on how to clean up other copies. This
includes:
- Fetching all refs, so that if refs outside of branches and tags
also reference the sensitive data, they can be cleaned up too
Note that if you have any local-only changes (i.e. un-pushed
changes) in your repository, on any branch or ref, this fetch step
may discard them. Working in a fresh clone avoids this problem;
see also the --no-fetch option if you don't want to work with a
fresh clone and you have important local-only changes.
- Tracking and reporting on the first changed commit(s)
- Tracking and reporting whether any LFS objects become orphaned by
the rewrite, so they can be removed
- Providing additional instructions at the end on how to clean up
the repository you cloned from, and other clones of the repo
--no-fetch::
Avoid the "fetch all refs" step with --sensitive-data-removal, and
thus avoid overwriting local-only changes in the repository, but at
the risk of leaving the sensitive data in other refs in the source
repository. This option is implied by --partial or any flag that
implies --partial.
Location to filter from/to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: Specifying alternate source or target locations implies
--partial. However, unlike normal uses of --partial, this doesn't
risk mixing old and new history since the old and new histories are in
different repositories.
--source <source>::
Git repository to read from
--target <target>::
Git repository to overwrite with filtered history
Miscellaneous options
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--help::
-h::
Show a help message and exit.
--force::
-f::
Ignore fresh clone checks and rewrite history (an irreversible
operation, especially since it by default ends with an
immediate pruning of reflogs and old objects). See
<<FRESHCLONE>>. Note that when cloning repos on a local
filesystem, it is better to pass `--no-local` to git clone
than passing `--force` to git-filter-repo.
--partial::
Do a partial history rewrite, resulting in the mixture of old and
new history. This disables rewriting refs/remotes/origin/* to
refs/heads/*, disables removing of the 'origin' remote, disables
removing unexported refs, disables expiring the reflog, and
disables the automatic post-filter gc. Also, this modifies
--tag-rename and --refname-callback options such that instead of
replacing old refs with new refnames, it will instead create new
refs and keep the old ones around. Use with caution.
--refs <refs+>::
Limit history rewriting to the specified refs. Implies --partial.
In addition to the normal caveats of --partial (mixing old and new
history, no automatic remapping of refs/remotes/origin/* to
refs/heads/*, etc.), this also may cause problems for pruning of
degenerate empty merge commits when negative revisions are
specified.
--dry-run::
Do not change the repository. Run `git fast-export` and filter its
output, and save both the original and the filtered version for
comparison. This also disables rewriting commit messages due to
not knowing new commit IDs and disables filtering of some empty
commits due to inability to query the fast-import backend.
--debug::
Print additional information about operations being performed and
commands being run. (If used together with --dry-run, shows
extra information about what would be run).
--stdin::
Instead of running `git fast-export` and filtering its output,
filter the fast-export stream from stdin. The stdin must be in
the expected input format (e.g. it needs to include original-oid
directives).
--quiet::
Pass --quiet to other git commands called.
OUTPUT
------
Every time filter-repo is run, files are created in the `.git/filter-repo/`
directory. These files are updated or overwritten on every run.
Commit map
~~~~~~~~~~
The `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/commit-map` file contains a mapping of how all
commits were (or were not) changed.
* A header is the first line with the text "old" and "new"
* Commit mappings are in no particular order
* All commits in range of the rewrite will be listed, even commits
that are unchanged (e.g. because the commit pre-dated when files
the filtering operation are removing were introduced to the repo).
* An all-zeros hash, or null SHA, represents a non-existent object.
When in the "new" column, this means the commit was removed
entirely.
Reference map
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/ref-map` file contains a mapping of which local
references were (or were not) changed.
* A header is the first line with the text "old", "new" and "ref"
* Reference mappings are sorted by ref
* An all-zeros hash, or null SHA, represents a non-existent object.
When in the "new" column, this means the ref was removed entirely.
Changed References
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/changed-refs` file contains a list of refs that
were changed.
* No header is provided
* Lists the subsets of refs from ref-map for which old != new
* While unnecessary since this provides no new information over ref-map,
it does make it easier to quickly determine which refs were changed by
the rewrite.
First Changed Commits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/first-changed-commits` contains a list of the
first commit(s) changed by the filtering operation. These are the commits
that got rewritten and which had no parents that were also rewritten.
So, for example if you had commits
A1-B1-C1-D1-E1
before running git-filter-repo, and afterward you had commits
A1-B2-C2-D2-E2
then the First Changed Commits file would contain just one line, which
would be the hash of B2.
In most cases, there will only be one commit listed, but if you had
multiple root commits or a non-linear history where the commits on
those diverging histories were the first ones modified, then there
could be multiple first changed commits and they will each be listed
on separate lines.
Already Ran
~~~~~~~~~~~
The `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/already_ran` file contains a file recording that
git-filter-repo has been run. When this file is present, future runs will
be treated as an extension of the previous filtering operation.
Concretely, this means:
* The "Fresh Clone" check is bypassed
This is done because past runs would cause the repository to no longer
look like a fresh clone, and thus fail the fresh clone check, but doing
filtering via multiple invocations of git-filter-repo is an intended
and support usecase. You already passed or bypassed the "Fresh Clone"
check on your initial run.
* The commit-map and ref-map files above will be updated rather than
simply rewritten.
In other words, if the first filter-repo invocation rewrote commit
A to commit B, and the second filter-repo invocation rewrite
commit B to commit C, then the second run would have an "A C"
entry rather than a "B C" entry for the changed commit.
* The first changed commit(s) (reported When using the
--sensitive-data-removal option) will be the first original commit
modified, not the first intermediate commit modified.
In more detail, if the repository original had the following commits:
A1-B1-C1-D1-E1
and the first invocation of filter-repo changed this to
A1-B1-C2-D2-E2
then the first run would report "C1" as the first changed commit. If
a second filter-repo run further changed this to
A1-B1-C2-D3-E3
then it would report "C1" as the first changed commit, not "D2",
because it is comparing to the original commits rather than the
intermediate ones.
However, if the already_ran file exists but is older than 1 day when they
invoke git-filter-repo, the user will be prompted for whether the new run
should be considered a continuation of the previous run. If they do not
answer in the affirmative, then the above three bullets will not apply.
This prompt exists because users might do a history rewrite in a repository,
forget about it and leave the $GIT_DIR/filter-repo directory around, and
then some months or years later need to do another rewrite. If commits
have been made public and shared from the previous rewrite, then the next
filter-repo run should not be considered a continuation of the previous
filtering run.
Original LFS Objects
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When running with the --sensitive-data-removal flag, and LFS is in use by the
repository, the `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/original_lfs_objects` contains a list of
LFS objects referenced by the repository before the rewrite, in sorted order.
Orphaned LFS Objects
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When running with the --sensitive-data-removal flag, and LFS is in use by the
repository, the `$GIT_DIR/filter-repo/orphaned_lfs_objects` contains a list of
LFS objects that used to be referenced by the repository but no longer are after
git-filter-repo has run. Objects appear in sorted order.
[[FRESHCLONE]]
FRESH CLONE SAFETY CHECK AND --FORCE
------------------------------------
Since filter-repo does irreversible rewriting of history, it is
important to avoid making changes to a repo for which the user doesn't
have a good backup. The primary defense mechanism is to simply
educate users and rely on them to be good stewards of their data; thus
there are several warnings in the documentation about how filter repo
rewrites history.
However, as a service to users, we would like to provide an additional
safety check beyond the documentation. There isn't a good way to
check if the user has a good backup, but we can ask a related question
that is an imperfect but quite reasonable proxy: "Is this repository a
fresh clone?" Unfortunately, that is also a question we can't get a
perfect answer to; git provides no way to answer that question.
However, there are approximately a dozen things that I found that seem
to always be true of brand new clones (assuming they are either clones
of remote repositories or are made with the `--no-local` flag), and I
check for all of those.
These checks can have both false positives and false negatives.
Someone might have a perfectly good backup of their repo without it
actually being a fresh clone -- but there's no way for filter-repo to
know that. Conversely, someone could look at all things that
filter-repo checks for in its safety checks and then just tweak their
non-backed-up repository to satisfy those conditions (though it would
take a fair amount of effort, and it's astronomically unlikely that a
repo that isn't a fresh clone randomly happens to match all the
criteria). In practice, the safety checks filter-repo uses seem to be
really good at avoiding people accidentally running filter-repo on a
repository that they shouldn't be running it on. It even caught me
once when I did mean to run filter-repo but was in a different
directory than I thought I was.
In short, it's perfectly fine to use `--force` to override the safety
checks as long as you're okay with filter-repo irreversibly rewriting
the contents of the current repository. It is a really bad idea to
get in the habit of always specifying `--force`; if you do, one day
you will run one of your commands in the wrong directory like I did,
and you won't have the safety check anymore to bail you out. Also, it
is definitely NOT okay to recommend `--force` on forums, Q&A sites, or
in emails to other users without first carefully explaining that
`--force` means putting your repositories' data at risk. I am
especially bothered by people who suggest the flag when it clearly is
NOT needed; they are needlessly putting other peoples' data at risk.
[[VERSATILITY]]
VERSATILITY
-----------
filter-repo has a hierarchy of capabilities on the spectrum from easy to
use convenience flags that perform pre-defined types of filtering, to
choices that provide lots of flexibility in controlling how filtering
occurs. This spectrum includes the following:
* Convenience flags making common types of history rewriting simple (e.g.
--path, --strip-blobs-bigger-than, --replace-text, --mailmap)
* Options which are shorthand for others or which provide greater control
than others (e.g. --subdirectory-filter could just be written using
both a path selection (--path) and a path rename (--path-rename)
filter; --paths-from-file can handle all other --path* options and more
such as regex renaming of paths)
* Generic python callbacks for handling a certain type of data (the
filename, message, name, email, and refname callbacks)
* Generic python callbacks for handling fundamental git objects, allowing
greater control over the combination of data types the object holds
(the commit, tag, blob, and reset callbacks)
* The ability to import filter-repo as a module in a python program and
use its classes and functions for even greater control and flexibility
while still leveraging lots of basic capabilities. One can even use
this to write new tools with a completely different interface.
For more information about callbacks, see <<CALLBACKS>>. For examples on
writing python programs that import filter-repo as a module to create new
history rewriting tools, look at the contrib/filter-repo-demos/ directory.
That directory includes, among other examples, a reimplementation of
git-filter-branch which is faster than git-filter-branch, and a
reimplementation of BFG Repo Cleaner with several bug fixes and new
features.
[[DISCUSSION]]
DISCUSSION
----------
Using filter-repo is relatively simple, but rewriting history is part of
a larger discussion in terms of collaboration. When you rewrite
history, the old and new histories are no longer compatible; if you push
this history somewhere for others to view, it will look as though you've
done a rebase of all branches and tags. Make sure you are familiar with
the "RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE" section of linkgit:git-rebase[1]
(and in particular, "The hard case") before proceeding, in addition to
this section.
Steps to use git-filter-repo as part of the bigger picture of doing a
history rewrite are roughly as follows:
1. Create a clone of your repository. You may pass `--bare` or
`--mirror` to `git clone`, if you prefer. You should pass
`--no-local` if the repository you are cloning from is on the local
filesystem. Avoid other flags; some might confuse the fresh clone
check, and others could cause parts of the data to be missing that
are needed for the rewrite.
2. (Optional) Run `git filter-repo --analyze`. This will create a
directory of reports mentioning multiple things: (a) paths that have
existed over time in your repo, (b) renames that have occurred in
your repo and (c) sizes of objects aggregated by
path/directory/extension/blob-id. This information may be useful in
choosing how to filter your repo. It can also be useful to re-run
--analyze after filtering to verify the changes look correct.
3. Before rewriting the history of your local copy with git-filter-repo,
determine where you will push the rewritten history to when you are
done. In the special case that you are trying to remove sensitive
data from an existing repository, you will want to push it back where
you cloned from, as well as clean up all other clones/copies of the
repo. If you will be pushing back to the repository you cloned from,
you will want to use the --sensitive-data-removal option and see the
Sensitive Data Removal section below. In most cases not dealing with
sensitive data removal, you will want to push to a new repo, because:
* Even after you rewrite history and push it back, other people who
previously cloned from the original repo will have the old history.
If they simply run `git pull && git push`, it will merge the
unrewritten history with the new, resulting in what looks like two
copies of each commit involved in your rewrite -- a new copy of
each commit which has the cleanups you made, and an old copy of
each commit that has not been cleaned up -- being merged together.
That means everything you carefully worked to remove from the
repository has been pushed back. You're more likely to succeed in
making sure they don't re-push the unclean data if you just give
them a new repository URL and tell them to reclone.
* Rewriting history will rewrite tags; those who have already
downloaded tags will not get the updated tags even if they specify
`--tags` to `git fetch` or `git pull` (see the "On Re-tagging"
section of linkgit:git-tag[1]). Every user trying to use an
existing clone will have to forcibly delete all tags they already
downloaded _before_ re-fetching them; it may be easier for them to
just re-clone, which they are more likely to do with a new clone
URL.
* Rewriting history may delete some refs (e.g. branches that only
had files that you wanted excised from history); unless you run
git push with the `--mirror` or `--prune` options, those refs
will continue to exist on the server. If folks then merge these
branches into others, then people have started mixing old and new
history. If users had already cloned these branches, removing
them from the server isn't enough; you need all users to delete
any local branches based on these refs and run fetch with the
`--prune` option as well. Simply re-cloning from a new URL is
easier.
* The server may not allow you to force push over some refs. For
example, code review systems may have special ref namespaces
(e.g. refs/changes/, refs/pull/, refs/merge-requests/) that they
have locked down, and you'll need to somehow prevent users from
merging those locked-down (and thus not cleaned up) histories
with your cleaned-up history. Every software code review system
handles this differently (see the sensitive data removal section
for some links).
4. Run filter-repo with your desired filtering options. Many examples
are given in the <<EXAMPLES>> section. For more complex cases, note
that doing the filtering in multiple steps (by running multiple
filter-repo invocations in a sequence) is supported. If anything
goes wrong here, simply delete your clone and restart.
5. Push your new repository to its new home (note that
refs/remotes/origin/* will have been moved to refs/heads/* as the
first part of filter-repo, so you can just deal with normal branches
instead of remote tracking branches).
6. (Optional) Some additional considerations
* filter-repo has a --replace-refs option to allow creating replace
refs (see linkgit:git-replace[1]) for each rewritten commit ID,
allowing you to use old (unabbreviated) commit hashes in the git
command line to refer to the newly rewritten commits. If you
want to use these replace refs, manually push them to the
relevant clone URL and tell users to manually fetch them (e.g. by
adjusting their fetch refspec, `git config --add
remote.origin.fetch +refs/replace/*:refs/replace/*`). Sadly,
replace refs are not yet widely understood; projects like jgit
and libgit2 do not support them and existing repository managers
(e.g. Gerrit, GitHub, GitLab) do not yet understand replace refs.
Thus one can't use old commit hashes within the UI of these other
systems. This may change in the future, but replace refs at
least help users locally within the git command line interface.
Also, be aware that commit-graphs are excessively cautious around
replace refs and just turn off entirely if any are present, so
after enough time has passed that old commit IDs become less
relevant, users may want to locally delete the replace refs to
regain the speedups from commit-graphs.
Why is my origin removed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When you rewrite history, all commit IDs (starting with the first one
where changes are made) are modified. Even if you think you didn't
change an intermediate commit, the fact that you changed any of its
ancestors is also a change that counts and will cause a commit's ID to
change as well. It is unfortunately all-too-easy for yourself or
someone else to accidentally merge the old ugly history you were
trying to rewrite with the new history, resulting in not only the old
ugly history returning but getting you "two copies" of each commit
(both an original commit and a cleaned-up alternative), and thus
doubling the number of commits in your repository. In short, you end
up with an even bigger mess to clean up than you started with.
This happens frequently to people using `git filter-branch` or `BFG
repo cleaner`, and can happen to folks using `git filter-repo` if they
insist on pushing back to the original repo. Example ways you can get
such an even uglier history include:
* at the command line (of another clone of the same repo from before the
cleanup): `git pull && git push`
* in a software forge: "reopen old Pull-Request/Merge-Request/Code-Review
and hit the merge/submit button"
Removing the `origin` remote and suggesting people push to a new repo
(and ensuring they tell others to clone the new repo) is usually a
good forcing function to avoid these problems. But, if people really
want to push to the original repository despite these warnings, it is
trivial to do so; simply run:
* `git remote add origin $ORIGINAL_CLONE_URL`
and then you can push (e.g. `git push --force --branches --tags
--prune`). Since removing the origin url is such a cheap way to
potentially prevent big messes, and it's so easy to work around for
those that really do want to push back over the original history,
removing the origin url is a great safety measure that I employ.
One final warning if you really want to push back to the original repo:
see the next section on sensitive data removals. Those are the steps
needed when pushing back to the original repo; they are so involved that
I assume they are only worth it when sensitive data is involved, but you
can choose to follow them for other kinds of rewrites too.
Sensitive Data Removals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sensitive data removals are a specialized type of history rewrite.
While it is always very problematic to mix the cleaned-up history with
the non-cleaned-up history, for sensitive data removals it is also bad
to allow others to continue to view/clone/fetch the non-cleaned-up
history at all; users often need to try to expunge the old history as
well.
Note that if the sensitive data under consideration is a
token/password/credential/secret (as is often the case), then it is
important that you revoke and rotate that credential first. Once the
credential is revoked or rotated, it can no longer be used for access.
Revoking/rotating may resolve your problem without resorting to the
heavy-handed action of rewriting and purging history.
For sensitive data removal history rewrites, there are three high-level
steps:
- Rewrite the repository locally, using git-filter-repo
- Make sure other copies are cleaned up, including:
* the server you cloned from
* other clones that exist, such as ones your colleagues made
- Prevent repeats and avoid future sensitive data spills
Each will be discussed in greater detail below.
One important thing to note, though, is that others working on the same
repository should be instructed to stop while you do the cleanup; if
they continue development during your cleanup, you'll likely be forced to
either discard their changes or start over on your cleanup.
Rewrite the repository locally, using git-filter-repo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The first step is to rewrite a copy of your repository locally using
git-filter-repo. The exact commands to run will differ based on where
in your repository the sensitive data is found, but some general tips:
- Use the --sensitive-data-removal flag. It will provide additional
information useful for the other steps.
- If the sensitive data is the entirety of one or more files, and no
version of those files from history needs to be kept in your
repository, the --invert-paths flag together with one or more --path
arguments may come in handy.
- If the sensitive data is just a string found within one or more
files and you want to replace that sensitive string with something
else while leaving the rest of the file(s) intact, the --replace-text
option may come in handy.
After rewriting the history locally, make sure to inspect it to ensure the
sensitive data has been removed. Some commands that might be handy for
checking are:
----
git log --all --name-status -- ${PROBLEMATIC_FILE1} ${PROBLEMATIC_FILE2}
----
or
----
git log -S"${PROBLEMATIC_STRING}" --all -p --
----
If either of these commands turn up more sensitive data, then run additional
git-filter-repo commands to clean up the necessary data before proceeding.
Make sure other copies are cleaned up: primary server
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cleaning up the repository you cloned from requires force pushing your
rewritten history over the original. You need to force push all refs,
not just your current branch. You can use the following command to do so
(read the bulleted list right after this command before running it):
----
git push --force --mirror origin
----
Several comments on this command:
* If any of your colleagues have pushed any changes since you
started, this force push command will discard their changes.
* This force push is likely to fail to push some refs, since most
forges (Gerrit, GitHub, GitLab, etc.) prevent you from updating
some refs (e.g. `refs/changes/*`, `refs/pull/*`,
`refs/merge-requests/*`). You will need to follow the directions
from those forges to get the remaining refs updated or deleted,
and a garbage collection to be triggered on their end. Some
examples:
(https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/repository/reducing_the_repo_size_using_git.html[GitLab's
docs on reducing repository size], or
https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/keeping-your-account-and-data-secure/removing-sensitive-data-from-a-repository#fully-removing-the-data-from-github[the
"Fully removing the data from GitHub" section of GitHub's docs]).
* If you passed the `--no-fetch` option to git-filter-repo (or
implied it with another option), you will either need to (1) drop
the `--mirror` option and figure out which refs or refspecs to
push on your own, or (2) use the `--mirror` option and risk
deleting any refs you didn't fetch. Further, if you lacked some
refs the server had which included the sensitive data in their
history, then your only options at this point to actually clean up
the sensitive data from the server are to either redo your rewrite
from scratch (and make sure to get the relevant refs included this
time) or delete those refs on the server.
* Yes, I know that --mirror implies --force and is unnecessary. I
included --force anyway as a visual reminder to readers that this
is going to overwrite changes on the server.
Also, if any LFS objects were orphaned by your rewrite, those objects
likely contain sensitive data and need to be deleted/purged from the LFS
server. You'll have to ask the maintainer of the LFS server you are
using for how to delete/purge those on the server.
Make sure other copies are cleaned up: clones of colleagues
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After you have cleaned up the server, the easiest way to clean up other
clones is to make everyone delete their existing clones and reclone.
If that isn't an option, then you will need to proceed carefully because
a simple `git pull && git push` from any other clone will recontaminate
the main repository and make the mess even harder to clean up. To avoid
this, before pushing from any other clone, you'll need to have them clean
up their copy, as detailed below.
First, though, let me note that you should *not* have other developers
try to cleanup their clone by running the same `git-filter-repo`
commands that you ran. While that sometimes may happen to work, it is
not reliable in general. Running the same `git-filter-repo` commands,
even if identical, can result in them getting new hashes for commits
that are different than your new hashes, and you'll end up with a mess
involving two or more copies of every commit.
Instead developers with other clones of the repository should run
through the following steps to clean up their copy if they are unwilling
to discard their copy and reclone:
- delete all tags and run `git fetch --prune --tags`. Running the
fetch command without deleting tags first will result in the old
tags being kept, which will keep the sensitive data.
- rebase any changes they have on any branch (or other ref) on top of
the new history. See the "RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE" section
of linkgit:git-rebase[1] (and in particular, "The hard case") for
instructions.
- run a few steps to clean out the pre-rebase history (note that the first
step drops all reflogs including all stash entries. That's a high cost,
but needed to clean up the sensitive data):
* git reflog expire --expire=now --all
* git gc --prune=now
Once these steps are complete, you also need to verify that the clone no
longer contains any sensitive data (it is really easy to miss something,
which puts you at risk of recontaminating other repositories with the
sensitive data). You can do so by running:
----
git cat-file -t ${HASH_OF_FIRST_CHANGED_COMMIT}
----
Where `${HASH_OF_FIRST_CHANGED_COMMIT}` was printed by git-filter-repo at
the end of its run (if there was more than one "first changed commit",
run this command multiple times, with each commit hash). If this
command returns a fatal error, then the commit has correctly been
removed from this repository. If it responds with "commit", then the
object still exists and you need to re-delete tags, re-rebase all
necessary branches/refs, and re-expire reflogs and redo the gc. If you
are curious about which branches or refs were the problematic ones
holding on to `${HASH_OF_FIRST_CHANGED_COMMIT}`, then presuming you did
the reflog expire and gc jobs above, the following command should help
you find the problematic branches/refs:
----
git for-each-ref --contains ${HASH_OF_FIRST_CHANGED_COMMIT}
----
Also, remember, the cat-file command needs to come back with a fatal
error for every `${HASH_OF_FIRST_CHANGED_COMMIT}` involved if you have
more than one.
After this is all done, then if any LFS objects were orphaned by the
rewrite (which again, you will be told if you use the
--sensitive-data-removal option when you run git-filter-repo), then you
also need to remove those LFS objects. Look for them a couple
directories under .git/lfs/objects/, and delete them.
Prevent repeats and avoid future sensitive data spills
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are several measures you can take to help avoid repeat problems.
Not all may be applicable for your case, but the more that are, the more
likely you can avoid problems.
For dealing with the existing sensitive data spill:
- Since it is so easy to re-contaminate the repository you cloned from
(it merely takes a colleague to run `git pull && git push` from their
clone that was created before your cleanup), take extra vigilance in
performing the clean ups steps above for other clones to ensure they
have all been cleaned up.
- If you have a central repository everyone pushes to, look into methods
to ban the First Changed Commit(s) from being (re-)pushed to your
repository. Sadly, few repository managers currently have such a
built-in capability (see Gerrit's ban-commit ability for one such
example at
https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/cmd-ban-commit.html),
but a few may allow you to write your own pre-receive hooks that