From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Antony Male <antony.male@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion: git fetch <remote> <branch> to update remote-tracking branch
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 03:59:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120306085919.GF21199@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vmx7v0wrw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:42:43AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > What do people think?
>
> I think this was discussed number of times here, and my vague
> recollection of the conclusion last time is that it would be OK to
> change the behaviour of single-shot fetch "fetch <remote> <branch>"
> against a remote where there is already a default fetch refspec that
> covers the <branch> so that such a fetch will update the remote
> tracking branch that usually copies from <branch> (and only that
> one).
>
> We might need a proper deprecation and migration plan, though. I
> say "might" because offhand I don't know what the extent of damages
> to existing users' habits will be if we didn't offer any.
If you (or somebody else) wants to look into it, I've had this patch
hanging around in my repo since 2009, but it does cause a bunch of
failures in the test suite. I don't think I ever investigated whether
the test failures were bad assumptions in the tests, or signs of a real
problem. Those test failures may also give a clue about how unwitting
users would be affected.
---
diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
index 65f5f9b..409c86c 100644
--- a/builtin/fetch.c
+++ b/builtin/fetch.c
@@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ static struct ref *get_ref_map(struct transport *transport,
const struct ref *remote_refs = transport_get_remote_refs(transport);
if (ref_count || tags == TAGS_SET) {
+ struct ref *tracking_refs = NULL;
+ struct ref **tracking_tail = &tracking_refs;
+
for (i = 0; i < ref_count; i++) {
get_fetch_map(remote_refs, &refs[i], &tail, 0);
if (refs[i].dst && refs[i].dst[0])
@@ -166,6 +169,12 @@ static struct ref *get_ref_map(struct transport *transport,
rm->merge = 1;
if (tags == TAGS_SET)
get_fetch_map(remote_refs, tag_refspec, &tail, 0);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < transport->remote->fetch_refspec_nr; i++)
+ get_fetch_map(ref_map, &transport->remote->fetch[i],
+ &tracking_tail, 0);
+ *tail = tracking_refs;
+ tail = tracking_tail;
} else {
/* Use the defaults */
struct remote *remote = transport->remote;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-06 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-05 16:45 Suggestion: git fetch <remote> <branch> to update remote-tracking branch Antony Male
2012-03-05 17:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-03-06 8:59 ` Jeff King [this message]
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=20120306085919.GF21199@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=antony.male@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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).