What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Here are the topics that have been cooking.  Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.

A preview of the upcoming release 1.8.2-rc0 is expected to be tagged
late this week.

You can find the changes described here in the integration branches of the
repositories listed at

    http://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html

--------------------------------------------------
[Graduated to "master"]

* sp/smart-http-content-type-check (2013-02-06) 3 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-06 at 8bc6434)
 + http_request: reset "type" strbuf before adding
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-05 at 157812c)
 + t5551: fix expected error output
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-04 at d0759cb)
 + Verify Content-Type from smart HTTP servers

 The smart HTTP clients forgot to verify the content-type that comes
 back from the server side to make sure that the request is being
 handled properly.

--------------------------------------------------
[New Topics]

* da/p4merge-mktemp-fix (2013-02-10) 1 commit
 - p4merge: fix printf usage

 Will merge to 'next'.


* jn/shell-disable-interactive (2013-02-11) 2 commits
 - shell: pay attention to exit status from 'help' command
 - shell doc: emphasize purpose and security model

 Will merge to 'next'.


* jk/read-commit-buffer-data-after-free (2013-02-11) 1 commit
 - log: re-encode commit messages before grepping

 Will merge to 'next'.


* mk/old-expat (2013-02-11) 1 commit
 - Allow building with xmlparse.h

 Will merge to 'next'.


* ef/non-ascii-parse-options-error-diag (2013-02-11) 1 commit
 - parse-options: report uncorrupted multi-byte options

 Will merge to 'next'.


* jk/rebase-i-comment-char (2013-02-12) 1 commit
 - rebase -i: respect core.commentchar

 Will merge to 'next'.


* mm/config-local-completion (2013-02-12) 1 commit
 - completion: support 'git config --local'

 Will merge to 'next'.

--------------------------------------------------
[Stalled]

* mp/diff-algo-config (2013-01-16) 3 commits
 - diff: Introduce --diff-algorithm command line option
 - config: Introduce diff.algorithm variable
 - git-completion.bash: Autocomplete --minimal and --histogram for git-diff

 Add diff.algorithm configuration so that the user does not type
 "diff --histogram".

 Looking better; may want tests to protect it from future breakages,
 but otherwise it looks ready for 'next'.

 Expecting a follow-up to add tests.


* mb/gitweb-highlight-link-target (2012-12-20) 1 commit
 - Highlight the link target line in Gitweb using CSS

 Expecting a reroll.
 $gmane/211935


* jk/lua-hackery (2012-10-07) 6 commits
 - pretty: fix up one-off format_commit_message calls
 - Minimum compilation fixup
 - Makefile: make "lua" a bit more configurable
 - add a "lua" pretty format
 - add basic lua infrastructure
 - pretty: make some commit-parsing helpers more public

 Interesting exercise. When we do this for real, we probably would want
 to wrap a commit to make it more like an "object" with methods like
 "parents", etc.


* rc/maint-complete-git-p4 (2012-09-24) 1 commit
 - Teach git-completion about git p4

 Comment from Pete will need to be addressed ($gmane/206172).


* jc/maint-name-rev (2012-09-17) 7 commits
 - describe --contains: use "name-rev --algorithm=weight"
 - name-rev --algorithm=weight: tests and documentation
 - name-rev --algorithm=weight: cache the computed weight in notes
 - name-rev --algorithm=weight: trivial optimization
 - name-rev: --algorithm option
 - name_rev: clarify the logic to assign a new tip-name to a commit
 - name-rev: lose unnecessary typedef

 "git name-rev" names the given revision based on a ref that can be
 reached in the smallest number of steps from the rev, but that is
 not useful when the caller wants to know which tag is the oldest one
 that contains the rev.  This teaches a new mode to the command that
 uses the oldest ref among those which contain the rev.

 I am not sure if this is worth it; for one thing, even with the help
 from notes-cache, it seems to make the "describe --contains" even
 slower. Also the command will be unusably slow for a user who does
 not have a write access (hence unable to create or update the
 notes-cache).

 Stalled mostly due to lack of responses.


* jc/xprm-generation (2012-09-14) 1 commit
 - test-generation: compute generation numbers and clock skews

 A toy to analyze how bad the clock skews are in histories of real
 world projects.

 Stalled mostly due to lack of responses.


* jc/add-delete-default (2012-08-13) 1 commit
 - git add: notice removal of tracked paths by default

 "git add dir/" updated modified files and added new files, but does
 not notice removed files, which may be "Huh?" to some users.  They
 can of course use "git add -A dir/", but why should they?

 Resurrected from graveyard, as I thought it was a worthwhile thing
 to do in the longer term.

 Stalled mostly due to lack of responses.


* mb/remote-default-nn-origin (2012-07-11) 6 commits
 - Teach get_default_remote to respect remote.default.
 - Test that plain "git fetch" uses remote.default when on a detached HEAD.
 - Teach clone to set remote.default.
 - Teach "git remote" about remote.default.
 - Teach remote.c about the remote.default configuration setting.
 - Rename remote.c's default_remote_name static variables.

 When the user does not specify what remote to interact with, we
 often attempt to use 'origin'.  This can now be customized via a
 configuration variable.

 Expecting a reroll.
 $gmane/210151

 "The first remote becomes the default" bit is better done as a
 separate step.

--------------------------------------------------
[Cooking]

* jc/fetch-raw-sha1 (2013-02-07) 4 commits
 - fetch: fetch objects by their exact SHA-1 object names
 - upload-pack: optionally allow fetching from the tips of hidden refs
 - fetch: use struct ref to represent refs to be fetched
 - parse_fetch_refspec(): clarify the codeflow a bit
 (this branch uses jc/hidden-refs.)

 Allows requests to fetch objects at any tip of refs (including
 hidden ones).  It seems that there may be use cases even outside
 Gerrit (e.g. $gmane/215701).


* jk/diff-graph-cleanup (2013-02-12) 6 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-12 at 6e764c1)
 + combine-diff.c: teach combined diffs about line prefix
 + diff.c: use diff_line_prefix() where applicable
 + diff: add diff_line_prefix function
 + diff.c: make constant string arguments const
 + diff: write prefix to the correct file
 + graph: output padding for merge subsequent parents

 Refactors a lot of repetitive code sequence from the graph drawing
 code and adds it to the combined diff output.

 Will merge to 'master'.


* mn/send-email-works-with-credential (2013-02-12) 6 commits
 - git-send-email: use git credential to obtain password
 - Git.pm: add interface for git credential command
 - Git.pm: allow pipes to be closed prior to calling command_close_bidi_pipe
 - Git.pm: refactor command_close_bidi_pipe to use _cmd_close
 - Git.pm: fix example in command_close_bidi_pipe documentation
 - Git.pm: allow command_close_bidi_pipe to be called as method

 Hooks the credential system to send-email.
 Rerolled.
 Waiting for a review.


* tz/perl-styles (2013-02-06) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-09 at c8cff17)
 + Update CodingGuidelines for Perl

 Add coding guidelines for writing Perl scripts for Git.

 Will merge to 'master'.


* al/mergetool-printf-fix (2013-02-10) 2 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at 5f9bc4e)
 + difftool--helper: fix printf usage
 + git-mergetool: print filename when it contains %

 Will merge to 'master'.


* jk/error-const-return (2013-02-08) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at ba8dba3)
 + Use __VA_ARGS__ for all of error's arguments

 Will merge to 'master'.


* mm/remote-mediawiki-build (2013-02-08) 2 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at 4ebb902)
 + git-remote-mediawiki: use toplevel's Makefile
 + Makefile: make script-related rules usable from subdirectories

 Will merge to 'master'.


* nd/branch-show-rebase-bisect-state (2013-02-08) 1 commit
 - branch: show rebase/bisect info when possible instead of "(no branch)"

 Expecting a reroll.
 $gmane/215771


* nd/count-garbage (2013-02-08) 3 commits
 - count-objects: report how much disk space taken by garbage files
 - count-objects: report garbage files in pack directory too
 - git-count-objects.txt: describe each line in -v output

 Expecting a reroll.
 $gmane/216127


* wk/man-deny-current-branch-is-default-these-days (2013-02-08) 1 commit
 - user-manual: Update for receive.denyCurrentBranch=refuse

 Will merge to 'next'.


* bw/get-tz-offset-perl (2013-02-09) 3 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at b9c8893)
 + cvsimport: format commit timestamp ourselves without using strftime
 + perl/Git.pm: fix get_tz_offset to properly handle DST boundary cases
 + Move Git::SVN::get_tz to Git::get_tz_offset

 Will merge to 'master'.


* mg/bisect-doc (2013-02-11) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at 6125304)
 + git-bisect.txt: clarify that reset quits bisect

 Will merge to 'master'.


* jc/extended-fake-ancestor-for-gitlink (2013-02-05) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-09 at 2d3547b)
 + apply: verify submodule commit object name better

 Instead of requiring the full 40-hex object names on the index
 line, we can read submodule commit object names from the textual
 diff when synthesizing a fake ancestore tree for "git am -3".

 Will merge to 'master'.


* tz/credential-authinfo (2013-02-05) 1 commit
 - Add contrib/credentials/netrc with GPG support

 A new read-only credential helper (in contrib/) to interact with
 the .netrc/.authinfo files.  Hopefully mn/send-email-authinfo topic
 can rebuild on top of something like this.

 Expecting a reroll.
 $gmane/215556


* jx/utf8-printf-width (2013-02-11) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at 968b4e2)
 + Add utf8_fprintf helper that returns correct number of columns

 Use a new helper that prints a message and counts its display width
 to align the help messages parse-options produces.

 Will merge to 'master'.


* dg/subtree-fixes (2013-02-05) 6 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-09 at 8f19ebe)
 + contrib/subtree: make the manual directory if needed
 + contrib/subtree: honor DESTDIR
 + contrib/subtree: fix synopsis
 + contrib/subtree: better error handling for 'subtree add'
 + contrib/subtree: use %B for split subject/body
 + contrib/subtree: remove test number comments

 contrib/subtree updates, but here are only the ones that looked
 ready to be merged to 'next'.  For the remainder, they will have
 another day.

 Will merge to 'master'.


* jl/submodule-deinit (2013-02-06) 1 commit
 - submodule: add 'deinit' command

 There was no Porcelain way to say "I no longer am interested in
 this submodule", once you express your interest in a submodule with
 "submodule init".  "submodule deinit" is the way to do so.

 Will merge to 'next'.


* jc/remove-export-from-config-mak-in (2013-02-12) 2 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-12 at eb8af04)
 + Makefile: do not export mandir/htmldir/infodir
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-07 at 33f7d4f)
 + config.mak.in: remove unused definitions

 config.mak.in template had an "export" line to cause a few
 common makefile variables to be exported; if they need to be
 expoted for autoconf/configure users, they should also be exported
 for people who write config.mak the same way.  Move the "export" to
 the main Makefile.  Also, stop exporting mandir that used to be
 exported (only) when config.mak.autogen was used.  It would have
 broken installation of manpages (but not other documentation
 formats).


* nd/status-show-in-progress (2013-02-05) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-11 at 5ffcbc2)
 + status: show the branch name if possible in in-progress info

 Will merge to 'master'.


* jc/mention-tracking-for-pull-default (2013-01-31) 1 commit
 - doc: mention tracking for pull.default

 We stopped mentioning `tracking` is a deprecated but supported
 synonym for `upstream` in pull.default even though we have no
 intention of removing the support for it.

 This is my "don't list it to catch readers' eyes, but make sure it
 can be found if the reader looks for it" version; I'm not married
 to the layout and will be happy to take a replacement patch.

 Will merge to 'next', unless a replacement materializes soonish.


* jc/hidden-refs (2013-02-07) 3 commits
 - upload/receive-pack: allow hiding ref hierarchies
 - upload-pack: simplify request validation
 - upload-pack: share more code
 (this branch is used by jc/fetch-raw-sha1.)

 Allow the server side to redact the refs/ namespace it shows to the
 client.

 Will merge to 'next'.


* jc/remove-treesame-parent-in-simplify-merges (2013-01-17) 1 commit
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-01-30 at b639b47)
 + simplify-merges: drop merge from irrelevant side branch

 The --simplify-merges logic did not cull irrelevant parents from a
 merge that is otherwise not interesting with respect to the paths
 we are following.

 This touches a fairly core part of the revision traversal
 infrastructure; even though I think this change is correct, please
 report immediately if you find any unintended side effect.

 Will cook in 'next'.


* jc/push-2.0-default-to-simple (2013-01-16) 14 commits
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-01-16 at 23f5df2)
 + t5570: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5551: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5550: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
  (merged to 'next' on 2013-01-09 at 74c3498)
 + doc: push.default is no longer "matching"
 + push: switch default from "matching" to "simple"
 + t9401: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t9400: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t7406: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5531: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5519: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5517: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5516: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5505: do not assume the "matching" push is the default
 + t5404: do not assume the "matching" push is the default

 Will cook in 'next' until Git 2.0 ;-).


* bc/append-signed-off-by (2013-02-12) 12 commits
 - Unify appending signoff in format-patch, commit and sequencer
 - format-patch: update append_signoff prototype
 - t4014: more tests about appending s-o-b lines
 - sequencer.c: teach append_signoff to avoid adding a duplicate newline
 - sequencer.c: teach append_signoff how to detect duplicate s-o-b
 - sequencer.c: always separate "(cherry picked from" from commit body
 - sequencer.c: require a conforming footer to be preceded by a blank line
 - sequencer.c: recognize "(cherry picked from ..." as part of s-o-b footer
 - t/t3511: add some tests of 'cherry-pick -s' functionality
 - t/test-lib-functions.sh: allow to specify the tag name to test_commit
 - commit, cherry-pick -s: remove broken support for multiline rfc2822 fields
 - sequencer.c: rework search for start of footer to improve clarity

 Will merge to 'next'.

--------------------------------------------------
[Discarded]

* mn/send-email-authinfo (2013-01-29) 1 commit
 . git-send-email: add ~/.authinfo parsing

 Instead of making send-email directly read from .netrc/.authinfo,
 mn/send-email-works-with-credential topic hooks the program to our
 credential framework, and tz/credential-authinfo topic gives access
 to these file formats to credential consumers.


* mm/allow-contrib-build (2013-02-07) 2 commits
 . perl.mak: introduce $(GIT_ROOT_DIR) to allow inclusion from other directories
 . Makefile: extract perl-related rules to make them available from other dirs

 Superseded by mm/remote-mediawiki-build.

jn/shell-disable-interactive (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12))

[Jonathan Nieder]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * jn/shell-disable-interactive (2013-02-11) 2 commits
>  - shell: pay attention to exit status from 'help' command
>  - shell doc: emphasize purpose and security model
>
>  Will merge to 'next'.

Please hold off on merging the second patch.  I'd like to reroll
renaming the command to 'no-interactive-login' or some such, which
would be less disruptive to existing setups and should be easier to
explain.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Re: jn/shell-disable-interactive (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12))

[Junio C Hamano]

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * jn/shell-disable-interactive (2013-02-11) 2 commits
>>  - shell: pay attention to exit status from 'help' command
>>  - shell doc: emphasize purpose and security model
>>
>>  Will merge to 'next'.
>
> Please hold off on merging the second patch.  I'd like to reroll
> renaming the command to 'no-interactive-login' or some such, which
> would be less disruptive to existing setups and should be easier to
> explain.

Thanks; that sounds like a sensible and safer change.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Andrew Ardill]

On 13 February 2013 11:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> * jc/add-delete-default (2012-08-13) 1 commit
>  - git add: notice removal of tracked paths by default
>
>  "git add dir/" updated modified files and added new files, but does
>  not notice removed files, which may be "Huh?" to some users.  They
>  can of course use "git add -A dir/", but why should they?
>
>  Resurrected from graveyard, as I thought it was a worthwhile thing
>  to do in the longer term.
>
>  Stalled mostly due to lack of responses.

What do you need to progress this?

I have been bitten by this before (the 'huh?' reaction) and think the
previous discussions and patch look reasonable. Does it need testing?
Further input??

Regards,

Andrew Ardill

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

> On 13 February 2013 11:06, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> * jc/add-delete-default (2012-08-13) 1 commit
>>  - git add: notice removal of tracked paths by default
>>
>>  "git add dir/" updated modified files and added new files, but does
>>  not notice removed files, which may be "Huh?" to some users.  They
>>  can of course use "git add -A dir/", but why should they?
>>
>>  Resurrected from graveyard, as I thought it was a worthwhile thing
>>  to do in the longer term.
>>
>>  Stalled mostly due to lack of responses.
>
> What do you need to progress this?
>
> I have been bitten by this before (the 'huh?' reaction) and think the
> previous discussions and patch look reasonable. Does it need testing?

I _think_ the code does what it claims it does; I do not think that
is what is lacking (more testing would not _hurt_, of course).

> Further input??

The updated behaviour is a departure from the traditional norm, and
it would surprise people who do not expect "git add ." to update the
index for removed paths.  For many of them, it may be a pleasant
surprise, but "many" is not "all".

The change could negatively affect people who expect that removing
files that are not used for their purpose (e.g. a large file that is
unnecessary for their build) will _not_ affect what they get from
"git add ."; obviously they must have trained themselves not to do
"git add -u" or "git commit -a".

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Andrew Ardill]

On 13 February 2013 11:34, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> The change could negatively affect people who expect that removing
> files that are not used for their purpose (e.g. a large file that is
> unnecessary for their build) will _not_ affect what they get from
> "git add .";

How big a problem is this?

If we need to support this behaviour than I would suppose a config
option is required. A default config transition path similar to git
push defaults would probably work well, in the case where breaking
these expectations is unacceptable.

> obviously they must have trained themselves not to do
> "git add -u" or "git commit -a".

Many people use git add -p by default, so I would not be surprised
about people not using -u or -a.

Regards,

Andrew Ardill

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

> On 13 February 2013 11:34, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The change could negatively affect people who expect that removing
>> files that are not used for their purpose (e.g. a large file that is
>> unnecessary for their build) will _not_ affect what they get from
>> "git add .";
>
> How big a problem is this?

As you said below, it could be fairly big, if you expect a lot of
people do not use "git add -u".

> If we need to support this behaviour than I would suppose a config
> option is required. A default config transition path similar to git
> push defaults would probably work well, in the case where breaking
> these expectations is unacceptable.

We've discussed that before.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/171811/focus=171818

>> obviously they must have trained themselves not to do
>> "git add -u" or "git commit -a".
>
> Many people use git add -p by default, so I would not be surprised
> about people not using -u or -a.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Andrew Ardill]

On 14 February 2013 02:27, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> If we need to support this behaviour than I would suppose a config
>> option is required. A default config transition path similar to git
>> push defaults would probably work well, in the case where breaking
>> these expectations is unacceptable.
>
> We've discussed that before.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/171811/focus=171818

Something that I couldn't find discussed was the option of, rather
than providing a config to 'turn it off', inverting the current
default/flags combo.

That is, currently git add defaults to not staging file deletions, and
we provide command line flags to include them. The consensus in the
thread is that it is better to stage them by default; it seems
reasonable to me that if we stage deletions by default we should
provide flags to _not_ stage them. If that was the entirety of the
change, would your position from that thread, "if we need this
optional, then it is not worth doing this", still hold?

Some people would be adversely affected by this change, but any
objections I can come up with are not game stoppers.
- It is possible newcomers might stumble at deleted files being staged
for commit by a command called 'add', but if they can already grok the
concept of staging then including deletions in that is trivial. If
they don't understand staging then we have a different issue.
- For people who rely heavily on file deletions remaining out of the
index, providing a flag allows them to keep their workflow. No data
would be lost, and most accidents would be easily recoverable.
- For scripts that rely on this behaviour, a flag allows it to be
updated, though it may break in the meantime. (I would presume that
not many of these scripts exist in the first place, but I don't really
know)

Finally, making this change makes sense from a consistency point of
view. For example, we don't track file renames because (and I
paraphrase) we can work that out from the content that is moved.
However if I rename a file and then 'git add .' I see that a new file
is added, not that it has been renamed! Manually adding the deletion
to the index causes git to correctly detect the rename, however this
is unintuitive and not consistent with how git works and is
communicated in general.

Git add is also inconsistent with git add -p (although that might be
due to unclear documentation for -p). When in patch mode, git add will
propose deletions get added to the index as well, not just additions
and modifications.

Regards,

Andrew Ardill

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

>> We've discussed that before.
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/171811/focus=171818
>
> Something that I couldn't find discussed was the option of, rather
> than providing a config to 'turn it off', inverting the current
> default/flags combo.
>
> That is, currently git add defaults to not staging file deletions, and
> we provide command line flags to include them. The consensus in the
> thread is that it is better to stage them by default; it seems
> reasonable to me that if we stage deletions by default we should
> provide flags to _not_ stage them. If that was the entirety of the
> change, would your position from that thread, "if we need this
> optional, then it is not worth doing this", still hold?

If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee
that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain,
then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition
will not hold.

> Some people would be adversely affected by this change, but any
> objections I can come up with are not game stoppers.
> - It is possible newcomers might stumble at deleted files being staged
> for commit by a command called 'add',...

New people are fair game; we haven't trained them with the
"inconsistent" behaviour, and the default being different from
historical behaviour will not affect them adversely.

> - For people who rely heavily on file deletions remaining out of the
> index, providing a flag allows them to keep their workflow.

Allowing to do the things they used to be able to do is a bare
minimum.  You are still forcing them to do things differently.

> - For scripts that rely on this behaviour, a flag allows it to be
> updated, though it may break in the meantime.

Likewise.

> Finally, making this change makes sense from a consistency point of
> view.

That is a given. Otherwise we wouldn't be even discussing this.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Andrew Ardill]

On 14 February 2013 15:36, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> That is, currently git add defaults to not staging file deletions, and
>> we provide command line flags to include them. The consensus in the
>> thread is that it is better to stage them by default; it seems
>> reasonable to me that if we stage deletions by default we should
>> provide flags to _not_ stage them. If that was the entirety of the
>> change, would your position from that thread, "if we need this
>> optional, then it is not worth doing this", still hold?
>
> If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee
> that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain,
> then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition
> will not hold.

Does the impossibility of asserting that no-one will complain put this
in the 'too hard' bucket?

>> Some people would be adversely affected by this change, but any
>> objections I can come up with are not game stoppers.
>> - It is possible newcomers might stumble at deleted files being staged
>> for commit by a command called 'add',...
>
> New people are fair game; we haven't trained them with the
> "inconsistent" behaviour, and the default being different from
> historical behaviour will not affect them adversely.
>
>> - For people who rely heavily on file deletions remaining out of the
>> index, providing a flag allows them to keep their workflow.
>
> Allowing to do the things they used to be able to do is a bare
> minimum.  You are still forcing them to do things differently.

The implication here is that a relatively small number of people will
be inconvenienced by needing to specify extra flags/set up an alias.
Compare this to the many for whom the expected behaviour is now
default, and we have a net win.

>> Finally, making this change makes sense from a consistency point of
>> view.
>
> That is a given. Otherwise we wouldn't be even discussing this.

Obviously I agree. I was actually bringing up a point about patch mode
and it got incorporated into the bigger picture; patch mode includes
deletions by default and I don't even know if you can turn that
behaviour off. So, when we talk about git add -u and git add -A, we
should also mention git add -p.

Regards,

Andrew Ardill

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

>> If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee
>> that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain,
>> then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition
>> will not hold.
>
> Does the impossibility of asserting that no-one will complain put this
> in the 'too hard' bucket?

Basically, yes.  "Cannot be done without UI regression."

It could be a Git 2.0 item, if you plan the transition right, though.

> The implication here is that a relatively small number of people will
> be inconvenienced by needing to specify extra flags/set up an alias.
> Compare this to the many for whom the expected behaviour is now
> default, and we have a net win.

We take backward compatibility a lot more seriously; it is not even
a democracy.

"Net win" does not mean an iota.  Even if "small number" is 47 and
large majority is 4 million, it does not change the fact that you
are breaking things these 47 people have depended on working in an
expected (the "expected" does not have to be "intuitive" in this
sentence; what counts more is that it is the way they are accustomed
to) way and introducing a UI regression.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee
>>> that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain,
>>> then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition
>>> will not hold.
>>
>> Does the impossibility of asserting that no-one will complain put this
>> in the 'too hard' bucket?
>
> Basically, yes.  "Cannot be done without UI regression."
>
> It could be a Git 2.0 item, if you plan the transition right, though.

I have been staring at the patch again, but I do not think of an
easy way out without retraining the old timers to introduce this "if
we knew better, we would have done so from day one and the world
would have been a much better place" change.  If we were to have
this in the longer term, we would need a proper transition plan,
similar to the one we devised to change the default used for a lazy
"git push" (and "git push $there") from the traditional "matching"
to "simple" at Git 2.0 boundary.

The transition would go like this:

 * Introduce "git add --ignore-removal" option in the release after
   the current cycle (a new feature is too late for this cycle):

   - when "git add <pathspec>" is given without "--ignore-removal",
     give a warning about upcoming default change, and advise people
     to use either "--ignore-removal" or "--all" option, but behave
     as if "--ignore-removal" were given.

   - when "git add --ignore-removal <pathspec>" is given, only add
     additions and modifications, just like the current behaviour.

   - obviously, "-u", "-A", and "--ignore-removal" are mutually
     exclusive.

 * Run with the above for a few releases.

 * Change the behaviour of "git add <pathspec>" without "-u", "-A"
   nor "--ignore-removal" to error out with the same warning and
   advise.

 * Run with the above for a few releases.

 * At Git 2.0, change "git add <pathspec>" without "-u", "-A" nor
   "--ignore-removal" to behave as if "git add -A <pathspec>" were
   given.

At any point during the above transtion, "git add" without any
pathspec will not change its meaning; it will stay a no-op.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[greened]

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

> * dg/subtree-fixes (2013-02-05) 6 commits
>   (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-09 at 8f19ebe)
>  + contrib/subtree: make the manual directory if needed
>  + contrib/subtree: honor DESTDIR
>  + contrib/subtree: fix synopsis
>  + contrib/subtree: better error handling for 'subtree add'
>  + contrib/subtree: use %B for split subject/body
>  + contrib/subtree: remove test number comments
>
>  contrib/subtree updates, but here are only the ones that looked
>  ready to be merged to 'next'.  For the remainder, they will have
>  another day.

Great, I've got updates for the rest.

                       -David

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Miles Bader]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>  * Introduce "git add --ignore-removal" option in the release after
>    the current cycle (a new feature is too late for this cycle):

Too late in the cycle even if the option is simply ignored ... ?

[To extend the range of git versions where it's not an error]

-miles

-- 
Kilt, n. A costume sometimes worn by Scotchmen [sic] in America and Americans
in Scotland.

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

[Junio C Hamano]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>  * Introduce "git add --ignore-removal" option in the release after
>>    the current cycle (a new feature is too late for this cycle):
>
> Too late in the cycle even if the option is simply ignored ... ?
>
> [To extend the range of git versions where it's not an error]

I'd feel safer to have enough time to cook the "alleged no-op"
before merging it to 'master' and include it in a release.

Possible implementation mistakes aside, "--ignore-removal" is
probably too long to type, we haven't even discussed if it deserves
a short-and-sweet single letter option, the obvious "-i" is not
available, etc. etc.  I do not think we have a concensus that the
transition plan outlined is a good way to go in the first place.

So, I do think it is a bit too late for this cycle, especially when
we still have doubts about the design. Actually it is *I* who have
doubts; I do not even know if other people share the doubts or they
support the direction wholeheartedly.