GIT: ignoring changes in tracked files and bug report

GIT: ignoring changes in tracked files and bug report

[Sérgio Basto]

Hi, I'm trying find a solution where I can change file in a devel
environment , and not commit it into git . 

git update-index --assume-unchanged <file> 

is one solution , not the best solution but one solution. 

I add 2 files that I want ignore on commits 

git update-index --assume-unchanged configurations/local.defs
git update-index --assume-unchanged processor/default.defs

git diff -a 
is clean 
git diff .
is clean

git commit -a 
nothing added to commit
but 
git commit . 
# Changes to be committed:
#       modified:   configurations/local.defs
#       modified:   processor/default.defs

this is a bug ? 

Anyway what is best way to deal with some files where we want change
locally and not commit in git . 
The solution of have one environment variable that says if we are in
devel or in production , and system read the variable and choose the
files to read can't be applied in my case, and is a no solution , is
save a variable outside of source code which I can't. 


Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Sérgio Basto]

Hi,

I add 2 files that I want ignore on commits 
git update-index --assume-unchanged configurations/local.defs
git update-index --assume-unchanged processor/default.defs

git diff -a 
is clean 
git diff .
is clean
git commit -a 

nothing added to commit

but 

git commit . 
# Changes to be committed:
#       modified:   configurations/local.defs
#       modified:   processor/default.defs

this is a bug .

thanks
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Johannes Sixt]

Am 05.12.2014 07:12, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> Hi,
>
> I add 2 files that I want ignore on commits
> git update-index --assume-unchanged configurations/local.defs
> git update-index --assume-unchanged processor/default.defs
>
> git diff -a
> is clean
> git diff .
> is clean
> git commit -a
>
> nothing added to commit
>
> but
>
> git commit .
> # Changes to be committed:
> #       modified:   configurations/local.defs
> #       modified:   processor/default.defs
>
> this is a bug .

Actually, it's a user error. When you set --assume-unchanged, then you 
give a promise to git that you do not change the files, and git does not 
have to check itself whether there is a change.

But since you did not keep your promise, you get what you deserve. ;-)

So, to follow-up on your nearby post: --assume-unchanged is *not* a tool 
to avoid accidentally committing changes to files that are tracked.

-- Hannes

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Duy Nguyen]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
> Actually, it's a user error. When you set --assume-unchanged, then you give
> a promise to git that you do not change the files, and git does not have to
> check itself whether there is a change.
>
> But since you did not keep your promise, you get what you deserve. ;-)

You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But
over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use
cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume
unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind
doing it.
-- 
Duy

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Sérgio Basto]

Hi,
On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 17:52 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: 
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
> > Actually, it's a user error. When you set --assume-unchanged, then you give
> > a promise to git that you do not change the files, and git does not have to
> > check itself whether there is a change.
> >
> > But since you did not keep your promise, you get what you deserve. ;-)


No, I marked with assume-unchanged *after* change the file , and not
before. Else don't see what is the point of assume-unchanged if you
really don't change the file. 


> You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But
> over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use
> cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume
> unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind
> doing it.

I think is the right thing 

Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com> writes:


> On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 17:52 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: 
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>> > Actually, it's a user error. When you set --assume-unchanged, then you give
>> > a promise to git that you do not change the files, and git does not have to
>> > check itself whether there is a change.
>> >
>> > But since you did not keep your promise, you get what you deserve. ;-)
>
>
> No, I marked with assume-unchanged *after* change the file , and not
> before. Else don't see what is the point of assume-unchanged if you
> really don't change the file. 

That "unchanged" is relative to what is in the index.

Your promise is "these paths I will not modify" and in return you
gain performance in "git status" as the promise allows Git not to
check with lstat() if the files in the workng tree was modified and
instead assume that you didn't change them.  That is the point of
assume-unchanged bit.

If however you did something that made Git notice that you changed
these paths marked with assume-unchanged bit anyway, then Git will,
well, notice that they are not "unchanged" as you promised.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com> writes:
>
>
>> On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 17:52 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>>> > Actually, it's a user error. When you set --assume-unchanged, then
>>> > you give
>>> > a promise to git that you do not change the files, and git does
>>> > not have to
>>> > check itself whether there is a change.
>>> >
>>> > But since you did not keep your promise, you get what you deserve.
>>> > ;-)
>>
>>
>> No, I marked with assume-unchanged *after* change the file , and not
>> before. Else don't see what is the point of assume-unchanged if you
>> really don't change the file.
>
> That "unchanged" is relative to what is in the index.
>
> Your promise is "these paths I will not modify" and in return you
> gain performance in "git status" as the promise allows Git not to
> check with lstat() if the files in the workng tree was modified and
> instead assume that you didn't change them.  That is the point of
> assume-unchanged bit.
>
> If however you did something that made Git notice that you changed
> these paths marked with assume-unchanged bit anyway, then Git will,
> well, notice that they are not "unchanged" as you promised.

The problem here is that there is no guidance on what those actions are
that may make git 'notice'. The man page git-update-index isn't as clear
as it could be. Using --really-refresh being one option that would make
git notice, but I wouldn't know when that is used.

Part of the implied question is why "git commit ." would notice when
when "git commit -a" didn't appear to. So it's unclear as to what the 
user should have expected.

(Note, I don't use assume-unchanged myself so this is more about 
supporting the user/manual clarification. It is mentioned moderately 
often on stackoverflow etc.)

--
Philip

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:

> The problem here is that there is no guidance on what those actions are
> that may make git 'notice'....

I think the guidance the users need is the one j6t has given already
in the upthread: "If you are promising Git you are not going to
touch a path, do not touch it.  Bad things may happen."

There is no need to say "if you touched this way or that way, then
you might get lucky." because the "lucky" part is not designed.  As
we find more codepaths that can rely on the promise by the user, we
may decide to take advantage of that promise even further and the
"lucky/unlucky" equation _will_ change when that happens.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> The problem here is that there is no guidance on what those actions 
>> are
>> that may make git 'notice'....
>
> I think the guidance the users need is the one j6t has given already
> in the upthread: "If you are promising Git you are not going to
> touch a path, do not touch it.  Bad things may happen."
>
> There is no need to say "if you touched this way or that way, then
> you might get lucky." because the "lucky" part is not designed.  As
> we find more codepaths that can rely on the promise by the user, we
> may decide to take advantage of that promise even further and the
> "lucky/unlucky" equation _will_ change when that happens.
>
However the man page's statement 'When the "assume unchanged" bit is on, 
Git stops checking the working tree files for possible modifications, so 
you need to manually unset the bit to tell Git when you change the 
working tree file.' can easily be understood the way Sergio has 
described. Git stops checking so it won't notice any changes, which is a 
contract it doesn't keep.

Perhaps the man page itself needs rewording to be more firm that the 
user should NOT change the file. The contract is with the user not to 
change, rather than a contract by Git not to look.

Even with that man page change, it would not solve many of the user X-Y 
problems where what they want is an "--ignore-this" flag for a file 
which does give that alternate contract that 'git won't look until the 
flag has been cleared.

--
Philip 

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Andreas Schwab]

"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:

> However the man page's statement 'When the "assume unchanged" bit is on,
> Git stops checking the working tree files for possible modifications, so
> you need to manually unset the bit to tell Git when you change the working
> tree file.' can easily be understood the way Sergio has described. Git
> stops checking so it won't notice any changes, which is a contract it
> doesn't keep.

The contract is: when you change the working tree file, you must tell
Git about it.  Failure to do so is a breach of the contract.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 20:48 +0000, Philip Oakley wrote:
> The problem here is that there is no guidance on what those actions
> are
> that may make git 'notice'. The man page git-update-index isn't as
> clear
> as it could be. Using --really-refresh being one option that would
> make
> git notice, but I wouldn't know when that is used.
> 
> Part of the implied question is why "git commit ." would notice when
> when "git commit -a" didn't appear to. So it's unclear as to what the 
> user should have expected.
> 
I agree with this sentence, this is a bug because:

git commit -a ( and -a means all ) is incoherent with "git commit ."
This is stupid because when I want commit part of the tree, commit
includes one file that is not included when I say to commit all . 
So maybe you should fix, git commit -a to be coherent . 

> (Note, I don't use assume-unchanged myself so this is more about 
> supporting the user/manual clarification. It is mentioned moderately 
> often on stackoverflow etc.)

yeap  

Sorry I don't have time to read all messages in thread , 
but I'm going to test git with the patch suggest in this thread , at
least, I solve "my" problem for some time ... 

Thanks,  
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Sérgio Basto" <sergio@serjux.com>
[..]
>> Part of the implied question is why "git commit ." would notice when
>> when "git commit -a" didn't appear to. So it's unclear as to what the
>> user should have expected.
>>
> I agree with this sentence, this is a bug because:
>
> git commit -a ( and -a means all ) is incoherent with "git commit ."
> This is stupid because when I want commit part of the tree, commit
> includes one file that is not included when I say to commit all .
> So maybe you should fix, git commit -a to be coherent .

Ultimately this (-a vs '.' with --assume-unchanged) is not a 'bug', 
because it does as planned. However the documenation is 'wrong' or at 
least misguides many readers.

Thank you for bring it to the list's attention.
[..]
>
> Sorry I don't have time to read all messages in thread ,
> but I'm going to test git with the patch suggest in this thread , at
> least, I solve "my" problem for some time ...
>
My patch, and Junio's 'squash' are to correct the documentation, and 
especially remove the line about it having an "ignore" capability, which 
is a promise not kept (your -a vs '.' !).

I'll be updating the documenation patch today for review, though that 
doesn't solve the wider problem of:
    - 'how to temporarily ignore changes to a tracked file'.
--
Philip 

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> If however you did something that made Git notice that you changed
> these paths marked with assume-unchanged bit anyway, then Git will,
> well, notice that they are not "unchanged" as you promised.

By the way, this cuts both ways.  I would not bother checking with
the current codebase, but I know it used to be that when we have a
blob object name and need a temporary file that holds the content
for read-only purpose (e.g. passing a pair of files to external diff
driver), we allowed Git to reuse files in the working tree whose
blob object name we knew.  This is of course because it is faster
than inflating the blob contents out of the object store and writing
a new file.

That codepath is allowed to "borrow" the working tree file as such a
temporary file for read-only purpose, when a file is stat-clean
(i.e. its contents is known to match the blob object recorded in the
index).  A file with assume-unchanged bit set is treated exactly the
same way, because the user promised not to modify it.

If the user broke the promise, then an external diff driver would
have been given a file whose contents does not actually match the
wanted blob object, resulting in an incorrect diff output.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 10:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Your promise is "these paths I will not modify" and in return you
> gain performance in "git status"

yeah  so  --assume-unchanged is for administrators of git , like I write
I change first  and --assume-unchanged after and never change it
again . 
But if it is a tool for administration of git , I don't what to say ...
put it in a gitadmin command . 

I hate git and this is one one the reason . 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com> writes:

> On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 10:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Your promise is "these paths I will not modify" and in return you
>> gain performance in "git status"
>
> yeah  so  --assume-unchanged is for administrators of git ,...

Not at all.

Administrators would typically not know (and they would not want to
know) what part of your particular project tree you as an individual
developer is not working on day to day.

This was added primarily by normal users (or as a response to a
request from normal users) on slow filesystems (e.g. Cygwin).  When
they are working on one part of their project tree and know they are
not touching other parts, they wanted to skip slowness of having to
lstat(2) all paths in the project tree to detect what changed during
"git status".

Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But
> over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use
> cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume
> unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind
> doing it.

I think that was a misguided change to make the semantics muddy and
to break the existing users who use the bit for its intended purpose
(i.e. to avoid lstat() by promising that it is not necessary), and
not "bending over to support".  Offhand, I doubt we would want to
add more of the same kind.

[PATCH] commit: ignore assume-unchanged files in "commmit <file>" mode

[Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy]

In the same spirit of 7fce6e3 (commit: correctly respect skip-worktree
bit - 2009-12-14), if a file is marked unchanged, skip it.

Noticed-by: Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
---
 builtin/commit.c                         |  2 +-
 t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
index e108c53..ee3de12 100644
--- a/builtin/commit.c
+++ b/builtin/commit.c
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int list_paths(struct string_list *list, const char *with_tree,
 		if (!ce_path_match(ce, pattern, m))
 			continue;
 		item = string_list_insert(list, ce->name);
-		if (ce_skip_worktree(ce))
+		if (ce->ce_flags & (CE_VALID | CE_SKIP_WORKTREE))
 			item->util = item; /* better a valid pointer than a fake one */
 	}
 
diff --git a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
index 99d858c..dc332f5 100755
--- a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
+++ b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
@@ -21,4 +21,14 @@ test_expect_success 'do not switch branches with dirty file' \
 	 git update-index --assume-unchanged file &&
 	 test_must_fail git checkout master'
 
+test_expect_success 'commit <paths> ignore assume-unchanged files' '
+	: >anotherfile &&
+	git add anotherfile &&
+	echo dirty >anotherfile &&
+	git commit -m one -- file anotherfile &&
+	git diff --name-only HEAD^ HEAD >actual &&
+	echo anotherfile >expected &&
+	test_cmp expected actual
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
2.2.0.60.gb7b3c64

Re: [PATCH] commit: ignore assume-unchanged files in "commmit <file>" mode

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 17:56 +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: 
> In the same spirit of 7fce6e3 (commit: correctly respect skip-worktree
> bit - 2009-12-14), if a file is marked unchanged, skip it.
> 
> Noticed-by: Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
>  builtin/commit.c                         |  2 +-
>  t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> index e108c53..ee3de12 100644
> --- a/builtin/commit.c
> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int list_paths(struct string_list *list, const char *with_tree,
>  		if (!ce_path_match(ce, pattern, m))
>  			continue;
>  		item = string_list_insert(list, ce->name);
> -		if (ce_skip_worktree(ce))
> +		if (ce->ce_flags & (CE_VALID | CE_SKIP_WORKTREE))
>  			item->util = item; /* better a valid pointer than a fake one */
>  	}
>  
> diff --git a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
> index 99d858c..dc332f5 100755
> --- a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
> +++ b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
> @@ -21,4 +21,14 @@ test_expect_success 'do not switch branches with dirty file' \
>  	 git update-index --assume-unchanged file &&
>  	 test_must_fail git checkout master'
>  
> +test_expect_success 'commit <paths> ignore assume-unchanged files' '
> +	: >anotherfile &&
> +	git add anotherfile &&
> +	echo dirty >anotherfile &&
> +	git commit -m one -- file anotherfile &&
> +	git diff --name-only HEAD^ HEAD >actual &&
> +	echo anotherfile >expected &&
> +	test_cmp expected actual
> +'
> +
>  test_done


works great many thanks, 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: [PATCH] commit: ignore assume-unchanged files in "commmit <file>" mode

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Sérgio Basto" <sergio@serjux.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 
2014 2:44 AM
> On Sex, 2014-12-05 at 17:56 +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>> In the same spirit of 7fce6e3 (commit: correctly respect 
>> skip-worktree
>> bit - 2009-12-14), if a file is marked unchanged, skip it.
>>
>> Noticed-by: Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  builtin/commit.c                         |  2 +-
>>  t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 10 ++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
>> index e108c53..ee3de12 100644
>> --- a/builtin/commit.c
>> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
>> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int list_paths(struct string_list *list, 
>> const char *with_tree,
>>  if (!ce_path_match(ce, pattern, m))
>>  continue;
>>  item = string_list_insert(list, ce->name);
>> - if (ce_skip_worktree(ce))
>> + if (ce->ce_flags & (CE_VALID | CE_SKIP_WORKTREE))
>>  item->util = item; /* better a valid pointer than a fake one */
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh 
>> b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
>> index 99d858c..dc332f5 100755
>> --- a/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
>> +++ b/t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh
>> @@ -21,4 +21,14 @@ test_expect_success 'do not switch branches with 
>> dirty file' \
>>  git update-index --assume-unchanged file &&
>>  test_must_fail git checkout master'
>>
>> +test_expect_success 'commit <paths> ignore assume-unchanged files' '
>> + : >anotherfile &&
>> + git add anotherfile &&
>> + echo dirty >anotherfile &&
>> + git commit -m one -- file anotherfile &&
>> + git diff --name-only HEAD^ HEAD >actual &&
>> + echo anotherfile >expected &&
>> + test_cmp expected actual
>> +'
>> +
>>  test_done
>
>
> works great many thanks,
>
Junio: Given that this patch avoids the user surprise that the `commit 
.` and `commit -a` produced unexpectedly different effects, should it 
also be included in the --assume unchanged patches? Or is the test 
inappropriate?

I'm guessing that there will still be other potential 'gotcha' code 
paths that would still produce surprise though.

Philip