From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/11] Avoid git-fetch in `git-pull .` when possible.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:35:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061228073517.GG17867@spearce.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org>
Users who merge frequently from remote repositories tend to prefer
`git-pull .` over `git-merge` for local merges, as the pull interface
is then consistent with how the user performs merges from remote
repositories.
Unfortunately `git-pull .` has a (small) amount of overhead on top of
`git-merge` as it needs to first invoke git-fetch to prepare the
FETCH_HEAD file. However we can easily detect this special case
of a local merge and jump directly into git-merge, bypassing that
overhead.
This change also allows users of `git-pull .` to take advantage of
the change made in commit e0ec1819, where git-merge uses the local
branch name in conflict hunks if it is invoked as a porcelain,
rather than as a plumbing.
Users may also now use `git-pull . foo~3` to merge the early part
of branch foo. This was not previously possible as git-fetch does
not know how to fetch foo~3 from a repository.
Unfortunately we cannot use this git-fetch bypass if the user is
also updating some sort of tracking branch in the local repository
as part of the pull from the local repository. This however is a
rather crazy usage of `git-pull .`, but we used to support it, so
we issue a silly warning message and use the older-style git-fetch
path to continue supporting it.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
---
git-pull.sh | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
index 28d0819..8c94fef 100755
--- a/git-pull.sh
+++ b/git-pull.sh
@@ -45,6 +45,33 @@ do
shift
done
+if test "X$1" = X.
+then
+ # We are merging from this repository. We can avoid fetch
+ # and go right into merge if the user isn't doing something
+ # odd like asking us to also update tracking branches in
+ # this repository as part of the pull. Yeah, they probably
+ # shouldn't do that - but we allowed it in the past...
+ #
+ direct_merge=1
+ for remote
+ do
+ case "$remote" in
+ *:*) direct_merge=0; break;;
+ esac
+ done
+ if test $direct_merge = 1
+ then
+ shift
+ exec git-merge \
+ $no_summary $no_commit $squash $strategy_args \
+ "$@"
+ else
+ echo >&2 "Clever... Updating tracking branch while pulling from yourself."
+ echo >&2
+ fi
+fi
+
orig_head=$(git-rev-parse --verify HEAD 2>/dev/null)
git-fetch --update-head-ok "$@" || exit 1
--
1.4.4.3.gd2e4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-28 7:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org>
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 2/11] Honor GIT_REFLOG_ACTION in git-rebase Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 3/11] Use branch names in 'git-rebase -m' conflict hunks Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 4/11] Ensure `git-pull` fails if `git-merge` fails Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 5/11] Honor pull.{twohead,octopus} in git-merge Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 6/11] Allow git-merge to select the default strategy Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce [this message]
2006-12-28 8:08 ` [PATCH 7/11] Avoid git-fetch in `git-pull .` when possible Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:17 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-28 9:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 8/11] Move better_branch_name above get_ref in merge-recursive Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 9/11] Allow merging bare trees " Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 10/11] Use merge-recursive in git-am -3 Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 11/11] Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:24 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-29 17:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061228073517.GG17867@spearce.org \
--to=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).