From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Turner Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2015, #05; Fri, 28) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:30:35 -0400 Organization: Twitter Message-ID: <1441045835.25570.7.camel@twopensource.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christian Couder , git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 31 20:30:45 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWTqt-0001nl-R9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:30:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753826AbbHaSak (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:30:40 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41]:34520 "EHLO mail-qg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753807AbbHaSaj (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:30:39 -0400 Received: by qgtt94 with SMTP id t94so20192867qgt.1 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:content-type:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3gIFF4JbgoPH56Vtyh40wGcZM279k0PdOLT9Mn3Pb6Y=; b=KNmYP2XudqARonb7DCMzpCWGpkyPD4RBrgHv2qmny/Z0CvtHTi0QR3J6W/bOJz8w7U 2btcdfb4SRUkfOeCpPYDsuClvmSYvB2Gt5zRmE0ypYvpi6PCqF6+xo5kCePndJ3w8EOc paJHT66VtL6DhP84QZd5yWoZHCzPNNPOSmPfWBhdHAZFsrOIhQWUZ9+UO6BPe2jBBRTv AVUYH53uPR5G4AvtxaZUuXOV9rAAJllUbWeEOHQTWuswRAZDVOeiY0wRba6dLtATY2xQ fpKp/Gbd4KBCrw/jqYQJJgiNc5NgPoh7Vk33wsVrgEtiKHUT7veag2crjfORLFul+kft BUWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuiK5mK45Iq/KnYmrtkRva87OmQrn+ZxLCyuLTpFNdLvnN5ZCSYkCsnKB4hWzX/aVgBdZm X-Received: by 10.140.132.71 with SMTP id 68mr42073761qhe.64.1441045838599; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ubuntu ([192.133.79.145]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p18sm4258544qge.40.2015.08.31.11.30.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:30:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 07:36 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > > >> * dt/refs-bisection (2015-08-28) 5 commits > >> - bisect: make bisection refs per-worktree > >> - refs: make refs/worktree/* per-worktree > >> - SQUASH??? > >> - path: optimize common dir checking > >> - refs: clean up common_list > >> > >> Move the refs used during a "git bisect" session to per-worktree > >> hierarchy refs/worktree/* so that independent bisect sessions can > >> be done in different worktrees. > >> > >> Will merge to 'next' after squashing the update in. > > > > Sorry if I am missing something or repeating what myself or someone > > else like Michael already said, but in the current doc there is: > > > > Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and > > you will have been left with the first bad kernel revision in > > "refs/bisect/bad". > > > > If we now just use "refs/worktree/bisect/bad" instead of > > "refs/bisect/bad", it might break scripts that rely using > > "refs/bisect/bad". > > Christian, thanks for raising this one. > > I do recall the thread and I might be the somebody like Michael you > remember, e.g. $gmane/275105---which did mention that "git bisect" > would not need changing if we kept refs/bisect/. > > What was the reason why we chose to move to refs/worktree/ again? I > do not think there was an issue that we cannot keep refs/* in > general shared while having one (or more) subhierarchy of it per > worktree (otherwise we would not be using refs/worktree/*, but using > something outside refs/, like $GIT_DIR/worktree-refs/). Was there an > objection to refs/bisect being private from aesthetics point of view > (i.e. forcing everything per-worktree in refs/worktree/ would prevent > proliferation of refs/this and refs/that that need to be private > case by case), ignoring the practical issue of compatibility issues > around existing tools? That is correct. IIRC, on one of these patch sets, I proposed accepting both new and old refs, but you said that would be unnecessary (it might have been the notes/merge one instead of this one). > I think one example of script, "gitk --bisect", does want to show > the DAG limited by bisect refs, but it does so using plumbing > without having to say refs/bisect/bad itself. Perhaps the thinking > (or lack of enough of it) went that no other uses by scripts need to > peek directly into refs/bisect/ hierarchy? I did a quick search on github, and did not see any scripts that said "refs/bisect".