[ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

GIT 0.99.9g is found at usual places.  There are a couple of
important changes, as the slow march towards 1.0 continues.

 - The RPM package has been split into a few packages by Jim
   Radford.  Unfortunately I am not equipped sufficiently to
   test the resulting RPMs, so please feed me updates and
   corrections as needed.  I think archimport part needs to be
   split out just like its svn/cvs cousins, and perhaps
   documentation into another separate package.

 - Fredrik Kuivinen's merge-recursive strategy is now the
   default merge strategy for two-head merge that happens after
   git-pull.  I do not expect this to cause major disruptions,
   but if this breaks things there is a workaround to override
   this [*1*].

Although I did not hear anybody jumping up-and-down to merge
svnimport updates from Yaacov Akiba Slama, I did not hear it
broke things either, so it graduated to the master branch and
included in this release.  It obviously improved things for
Yaacov, and I am hoping this would not cause disruptions for
people's existing setup.

Also included are unexciting bits of fixes here and there.

On the "proposed updates" front, things finally seem to be
calming down.

 - One important newcomer is git-pack-redundant.  It is still in
   "pu" not because I doubt what it does is useful, but simply
   because I have not had a chance to study how it does its
   thing.  I expect to fully merge it into "master" before 1.0
   happens.

 - Among my own toys in the "pu" branch:

   - Determination of merge base for Octopus merge was quite
     pessimistic, and a proposed fix is in there; since I will
     be regularly and frequently doing Octopus merges, I'll soon
     know if this change breaks things; otherwise it will
     graduate to "master" shortly.

   - merge-base computation done by show-branch was a bit loose
     compared to the real merge-base, as pointed out by Linus on
     the list, although it does not seem to matter too much in
     practice.  Also I plan to look into merge-base to see if I
     can fix the horizon effect cheaply but that work has not
     started yet (it is triggered by fairly pathological case).

   - I got tired of not being able to get the committer date
     (except the raw format which is unreadable) out of git-log,
     and added --pretty=fuller format.  This should not break
     people's existing setup, so I expect it to move to "master"
     soon, maybe with a name change if somebody can suggest a
     better name for it.

   - Change merge-one-file to handle the case where two sides
     add the same path differently.  Instead of punting, try to
     do two-file merge from both sides.  This _might_ turn out
     to be useful, but I do not know yet, so it won't graduate
     to "master" unless somebody convinces me (and the
     community) that it is useful in some use-case scenario.

   - Add git-lost+found.  Currently the implementation stores
     found refs under .git/lost+found/{commit,other}
     directories, but writing out their object names to the
     standard output and let the users decide what to do with
     them was suggested on the list by Daniel, which makes sense
     as well.  There are pros and cons so until we know if it is
     useful and if so in what form, it will not come out of "pu"
     branch.

   - I do not consider either git-shallow-pack and git-changes
     "master" material.  The former is a hack to create
     deliberately broken repository.  The latter is supporting a
     wrong workflow, as Linus described the other day.  You can
     temporarily fetch what you want to compare into local
     repository and run git-log or git-whatchanged normally.

Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
timeframe.


[Footnote]

*1* If for whatever reason you would prefer to keep using the
'resolve' strategy as before when you run 'git-pull', you can
either do 'git-pull -s resolve <remote> <refspec>...' on the
command line, or add the following in your .git/config file:

        [pull]
                twohead = resolve

On the other hand, if you like to try resolve and then
recursive, you can have this instead (the order does matter, the
first one is tried first):

        [pull]
                twohead = resolve
                twohead = recursive

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Jeff Garzik]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
>  - One important newcomer is git-pack-redundant.  It is still in
>    "pu" not because I doubt what it does is useful, but simply
>    because I have not had a chance to study how it does its
>    thing.  I expect to fully merge it into "master" before 1.0
>    happens.

IMHO git-prune-packed should prune redundant pack files...



> Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
> timeframe.

:(  bummer.  I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing 
stuff out of /usr/libexec/git.

/usr/libexec/git also makes it IMO cleaner when integrating git plugins 
from third parties (rpm -Uvh git-newfeature), because you don't have to 
worry about the /usr/bin namespace.

	Jeff

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Yaacov Akiba Slama]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

>Although I did not hear anybody jumping up-and-down to merge
>svnimport updates from Yaacov Akiba Slama, I did not hear it
>broke things either, so it graduated to the master branch and
>included in this release.  It obviously improved things for
>Yaacov, and I am hoping this would not cause disruptions for
>people's existing setup.
>  
>
Thanks for the merge.
IMHO, the commit labelled 
"Bundle file copies from multiple branches into a merge" 
(109fc2b97b73090a4a0a6550cdf9b2446fd12389) needs more attention/discussion.

In svn, there is no concept of branches or tag, but because the copy is 
cheap, directories are used to simulate branches and tags.
The repository will be like :

/trunk/path/to/file
/branches/branch_1/path/to/file
/branches/branch_n/path/to/file
/tags/tag_1/path/to/file
/tags/tag_m/path/to/file

Now, someone can copy directory or files from the trunk or any 
branch/tag into any other directory. For instance one can commit the 
following tree as a new revision :

/trunk/path/to/file
/trunk/new/path/to/file (this is a copy of /branches/branch_1/path/to/file)
/branches/branch_1/path/to/file
/branches/branch_n/path/to/file
/tags/tag_1/path/to/file
/tags/tag_m/path/to/file


Now the commit 109fc2b97b73090a4a0a6550cdf9b2446fd12389 creates a new 
commit with two parents:
1) HEAD
2) the git branch called "branch_1"

 From what I read about the definition of commit in git's documentation, 
that seems to be ok, but can this marking of  "branch_1" as a parent of 
this commit be dangerous for merges done later in pure git ?

--yas

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[H. Peter Anvin]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>    - Add git-lost+found.  Currently the implementation stores
>      found refs under .git/lost+found/{commit,other}
>      directories, but writing out their object names to the
>      standard output and let the users decide what to do with
>      them was suggested on the list by Daniel, which makes sense
>      as well.  There are pros and cons so until we know if it is
>      useful and if so in what form, it will not come out of "pu"
>      branch.
> 

May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
"lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>> Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
>> timeframe.
> 
> 
> :(  bummer.  I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing 
> stuff out of /usr/libexec/git.
> 
> /usr/libexec/git also makes it IMO cleaner when integrating git plugins 
> from third parties (rpm -Uvh git-newfeature), because you don't have to 
> worry about the /usr/bin namespace.
> 

It's nice in concept, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this is 
a bad idea:

- "man" doesn't handle it.  It would be another thing if "man" could be 
taught to understand commands like "man cvs checkout" or "man git fetch".

- There is no general way to teach shells etc about it, for tab 
completion etc.

- Makes it harder (but not impossible) to run git from a build directory 
without installing it first.

In comparison, the issue of clutter in /usr/bin is actually a pretty 
small issue, especially with htree.  Most vendors have gone back to 
putting everything into /usr/bin since all variants that involve 
splitting it up seem to be more of a loss than a gain.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:

> May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
> "lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
> many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.

Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
not to worry.  In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests,
we would not be storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so
this would be a non-issue.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:44:43PM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> 
> > May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
> > "lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
> > many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.
> 
> Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
> I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
> on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
> not to worry.

It was the Large Angry SCM. I share your concern.

> In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests, we would not be
> storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so this would be a
> non-issue.

I like Daniel's route as well, for the separate command. But it would be
nice to also have a way to tell git-fsck-cache to save the lost+found
refs as it goes, much like the filesystem fsck. So if it reports some
unreachable refs, you will not need to tell it to do the same job
_another_ time to find out the refs and pass them to gitk. Then again,
if we do this, the utility of a separate command will be questionable.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

> Dear diary, on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:44:43PM CET, I got a letter
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> > 
> > > May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
> > > "lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
> > > many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.
> > 
> > Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
> > I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
> > on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
> > not to worry.
> 
> It was the Large Angry SCM. I share your concern.
> 
> > In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests, we would not be
> > storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so this would be a
> > non-issue.
> 
> I like Daniel's route as well, for the separate command. But it would be
> nice to also have a way to tell git-fsck-cache to save the lost+found
> refs as it goes, much like the filesystem fsck. So if it reports some
> unreachable refs, you will not need to tell it to do the same job
> _another_ time to find out the refs and pass them to gitk. Then again,
> if we do this, the utility of a separate command will be questionable.

Maybe git-fsck-objects should have an option to make it note dangling 
objects of certain types, and then count these as reachable? (That is, you 
want the head of an unreachable chain listed for recovery, but not other 
things reachable from it; you also may want the list of blobs and trees 
not reachable either from a ref or from something listed for recovery, but 
not omitting a blob reachable only from an unreachable tree)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Andreas Ericsson]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>
>>> Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
>>> timeframe.
>>
>>
>>
>> :(  bummer.  I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing 
>> stuff out of /usr/libexec/git.
>>
>> /usr/libexec/git also makes it IMO cleaner when integrating git 
>> plugins from third parties (rpm -Uvh git-newfeature), because you 
>> don't have to worry about the /usr/bin namespace.
>>
> 
> It's nice in concept, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this is 
> a bad idea:
> 
> - "man" doesn't handle it.  It would be another thing if "man" could be 
> taught to understand commands like "man cvs checkout" or "man git fetch".
> 

This is moot. man-pages can still be named git-fetch.

> - There is no general way to teach shells etc about it, for tab 
> completion etc.
> 

Add the lib directory to the path (for git-<tab><tab>) or have it 
auto-evaluate the result of a git command-listing.

> - Makes it harder (but not impossible) to run git from a build directory 
> without installing it first.
> 

Provided adding --lib=. is considered difficult, yes. Btw, this problem 
still applies as some of the programs run other programs that are 
expected to be in the path.

I've just posted a patch (used my submit-patch script, which was stupid 
since I should have posted it here) that doesn't have any of these problems.

> In comparison, the issue of clutter in /usr/bin is actually a pretty 
> small issue, especially with htree.  Most vendors have gone back to 
> putting everything into /usr/bin since all variants that involve 
> splitting it up seem to be more of a loss than a gain.
> 

Fair enough. With the patch I've just sent (C implementation of the 
'git' program) this option is certainly available.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Jim Radford]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:14:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>    I think archimport part needs to be split out just like its
>    svn/cvs cousins,

I don't agree.  The chance of running git-archimport and not having
arch installed is significantly less likely than the chance of not
noticing that the git-archimport program exists because it was moved
into a separate package that you didn't know you needed to install in
the first place.

The main reason I see for splitting cvs and email import out is the
non-standard dependencies, cvsps and perl(Email::Valid).  While for
svn import it's to keep from requiring subversion-perl of everone who
installs git-core.  This dependency is added automatically, so you
cannot easily just ignore it like you can in the arch/tla case.

> and perhaps documentation into another separate package.

There is no need for a separate documentation RPM, since the
documentation is marked as such and rpm has a standard way to avoid
installing them (--excludedocs).

-Jim

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

> ... (That is, you 
> want the head of an unreachable chain listed for recovery, but not other 
> things reachable from it; you also may want the list of blobs and trees 
> not reachable either from a ref or from something listed for recovery, but 
> not omitting a blob reachable only from an unreachable tree)

I thought that was what those 'dangling blah' was about...
That is, if you make commit A and then on top of that commit B,
and lose both, you will see dnagling for B but not A (which is
reachable from B).

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > ... (That is, you 
> > want the head of an unreachable chain listed for recovery, but not other 
> > things reachable from it; you also may want the list of blobs and trees 
> > not reachable either from a ref or from something listed for recovery, but 
> > not omitting a blob reachable only from an unreachable tree)
> 
> I thought that was what those 'dangling blah' was about...
> That is, if you make commit A and then on top of that commit B,
> and lose both, you will see dnagling for B but not A (which is
> reachable from B).

Right; what I was pointing out is that you want the dangling commits, but 
the unreachable blobs and trees, and want reachability to count things 
listed as dangling, which is a somewhat novel combination of desires, I 
think.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
> I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
> on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
> not to worry.  In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests,
> we would not be storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so
> this would be a non-issue.

I don't know how many people do this, but with the current kernel sources, 
"git-fsck-cache --full" takes about a minute on a reasonable fast machine 
with everything in cache (ie no real disk activity to speak of)

I personally think that's fine, since I repack my trees every once in a 
while, and almost never run a "--full" check, I only do incrementals 
(which are basically free). And I suspect that I run fsck a lot more than 
anybody else does.

But the point is, that if you actually run fsck every time you want to 
visualize your pending commits, you're going to feel the pain. 

I think having some kind of lost+found so that you don't have to re-run 
fsck just because you decided to look at them some other way (use "git 
log" instead of "gitk" or whatever) makes a lot of sense. But yes, it 
shouldn't really be called "lost+found" due to some rather serious 
confusion that can cause.

		Linus

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> But the point is, that if you actually run fsck every time you want to 
> visualize your pending commits, you're going to feel the pain. 
                 ^^^^^^^

That should be "dangling", of course. 

		Linus

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Yaacov Akiba Slama <ya@slamail.org> writes:

> /trunk/path/to/file
> /trunk/new/path/to/file (this is a copy of /branches/branch_1/path/to/file)
> /branches/branch_1/path/to/file
> /branches/branch_n/path/to/file
> /tags/tag_1/path/to/file
> /tags/tag_m/path/to/file
>
> Now the commit 109fc2b97b73090a4a0a6550cdf9b2446fd12389 creates a new 
> commit with two parents:
> 1) HEAD
> 2) the git branch called "branch_1"
>
> From what I read about the definition of commit in git's documentation, 
> that seems to be ok, but can this marking of  "branch_1" as a parent of 
> this commit be dangerous for merges done later in pure git ?

I think it is reasonable to record both as parents, to make the
development history in branch_1 accessible from the trunk branch
after they are merged, and I do not think it is dangerous at
all.  It is just a regular merge which, when viewed from trunk
side of the history, creates a directory called 'new' at the top
level, and adds bunch of files there, and if you are viewing it
with rename/copy detection you may even notice that those
changes are mostly copy edits.

But the above example brings up an interesting question.
Subversion lets you copy freely and does not require the
developer to express machine-readably what that copy is about.
Also it lets copy partial trees.  So it is entirely plausible to
run your project like this:

	1. Repo has /trunk/i386/blah.c; i.e. 'ls' at the
           toplevel of the working tree shows 'i386' directory.

               /trunk/i386/blah.h

        2. Somebody wants to do x86-64 equivalent of existing
           thing, and starts preparing it by copying existing
           i386 thing, into his branch, and do development
           there.

		/trunk/i386/blah.c
                /branches/wip-x86-64/blah.c (copy from /trunk/i386)

        3. Later, that x86-64 equivalent matures, and gets
           merged into trunk:

		/trunk/i386/blah.c
		/trunk/x86-64/blah.c (merge back from /branches/wip-x86-64)
                /branches/wip-x86-64/blah.c (development ceased)

But it is also plausible to do this instead:

	2'. Instead of the above, you copy the whole thing

		/trunk/i386/blah.c
                /branches/wip/i386/blah.c (copy from /trunk)
                /branches/wip/x86-64/blah.c (then copy from /branches/wip/i386)

        3'. Instead of the above:

		/trunk/i386/blah.c (merge back from /branches/wip)
		/trunk/x86-64/blah.c (merge back from /branches/wip)
                /branches/wip/i386/blah.c (development ceased)
                /branches/wip/x86-64/blah.c (development ceased)

Do you need to handle the history resulting from these cases
differently when importing from subversion?  I have a feeling
that the user needs to tell what really happend for you to
handle this sensibly (tree root level is different), but I am
not offhand sure what the issues are.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Andreas Ericsson]

Jim Radford wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:14:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>>   I think archimport part needs to be split out just like its
>>   svn/cvs cousins,
> 
> 
> I don't agree.  The chance of running git-archimport and not having
> arch installed is significantly less likely than the chance of not
> noticing that the git-archimport program exists because it was moved
> into a separate package that you didn't know you needed to install in
> the first place.
> 

How is this different for when svnimport and cvsimport was moved out? I 
don't think anyone expected people to run those commands by accident 
without noticing that they fail without the svn || cvs installed underneath.

> The main reason I see for splitting cvs and email import out is the
> non-standard dependencies, cvsps and perl(Email::Valid).


Define "non-standard". String::ShellQuote isn't installed by default on 
Fedora Core 3 but is required by git-archimport.


>  While for
> svn import it's to keep from requiring subversion-perl of everone who
> installs git-core.  This dependency is added automatically, so you
> cannot easily just ignore it like you can in the arch/tla case.
> 

It's fairly simple to provide a custom find-requires script.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

> Jim Radford wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:14:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>>   I think archimport part needs to be split out just like its
>>>   svn/cvs cousins,
>> I don't agree...
>
> How is this different for when svnimport and cvsimport was moved out?..
>
>> The main reason I see for splitting cvs and email import out is the
>> non-standard dependencies, cvsps and perl(Email::Valid).
>
> Define "non-standard". String::ShellQuote isn't installed by default on 
> Fedora Core 3 but is required by git-archimport.

I am with Andreas here.

If you are using git to manage development in a tightly knitted
group (e.g. company internal project) and are unlikely to be
exchanging email patches, not having to pull Email::Valid into
your system is a good thing, because you would not be using
git-mail.  If you are not dealing with development history
stored in svn or tla, not having to install git-svn nor git-tla
is a good thing.

Technical reasons like package availablity and required package
size count, but I do not think we should be doing the split
purely for technical reasons.  The split should aim primarily
to give convenience for the users.

That reminds me, Andreas, you said something about feeding me
spec updates last week but Jim beated you.  I am open to
improvements from both of you.  Obviously the invitation is not
limited to two of you ;-).

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. "lost+found" 
> is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, many backup 
> solutions will ignore a directory with that name.

Two reasons against renaming:

- we call it fsck-objects for a reason. We are working on a file system, 
  which just so happens to be implemented in user space, not kernel space.
  If lost+found has to find a new name, so does fsck-objects.

- lost+found has a special meaning, granted. So, a backup would not be 
  made of it. So what? I *don't* want it backup'ed. I want to repair what
  was wrong with it. When I repaired it, the result is stored somewhere
  else. To backup lost+found would make as much sense as to backup /tmp.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[H. Peter Anvin]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> Two reasons against renaming:
> 
> - we call it fsck-objects for a reason. We are working on a file system, 
>   which just so happens to be implemented in user space, not kernel space.
>   If lost+found has to find a new name, so does fsck-objects.
> 

I'm sorry, but that is bull.  The problem here isn't the conventional 
naming, it's that you're implementing your filesystem on top of another 
filesystem, and you're running into a layering conflict.

> - lost+found has a special meaning, granted. So, a backup would not be 
>   made of it. So what? I *don't* want it backup'ed. I want to repair what
>   was wrong with it. When I repaired it, the result is stored somewhere
>   else. To backup lost+found would make as much sense as to backup /tmp.
> 

The default should ALWAYS be no data loss.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Jim Radford]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 12:48:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
> > Jim Radford wrote:

> >> The main reason I see for splitting cvs and email import out is the
> >> non-standard dependencies, cvsps and perl(Email::Valid).

> > Define "non-standard". String::ShellQuote isn't installed by default on 
> > Fedora Core 3 but is required by git-archimport.

You are right.  I had missed that it required String::ShellQuote.  It
should go in it's own RPM (and it already has).

-Jim

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>  - One important newcomer is git-pack-redundant...
>
> IMHO git-prune-packed should prune redundant pack files...

Maybe not in git-prune-packed, but you are right.  We should at
least do that in git-prune.  Maybe with something like the patch
at the end?

>> Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
>> timeframe.
>
> :(  bummer.  I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing 
> stuff out of /usr/libexec/git.

Bummer here as well.  This is not my first preference, but more
or less "all things considered...".  I can go over cogito and
stgit with Pasky and Catalin and coordinate the transition, but
at the same time, everybody's existing scripts need to be
adjusted.  As Linus said, we broke kernel.org snapshot scripts
number of times.

Also places we execute git-upload-pack and git-receive-pack over
an SSH connection need to be updated to execute 'git' with the
first parameter 'upload-pack' and 'receive-pack' to make sure it
would keep working with older or newer git on the other end.

After all that happens, we can start installing things in
/usr/lib/git/.  During the transition, the C rewrite of git
wrapper posted by Andreas Ericsson might help, so I am planning
to merge it before 1.0, after deciding what the right word for
the "path to the rest of git executables" should be.

So let's say 1.0 will ship with all things in /usr/bin/, with
updated docs that explain the situation: (1) the dash form
'git-frotz' is being deprecated, and you are encouraged to spell
it as 'git frotz'; (2) if you want to use the dash form in your
scripts for performance reasons, you need to have something like
PATH="$(git --exec-path):$PATH" at the beginning of your script.

And after some time (say 2 months) we can switch.

I just do not want to wait that long before 1.0.

-- >8 -- cut here -- >8 --
[PATCH] git-prune: prune redundant packs.

---
diff --git a/git-prune.sh b/git-prune.sh
index ef31bd2..aa79807 100755
--- a/git-prune.sh
+++ b/git-prune.sh
@@ -27,3 +27,14 @@ sed -ne '/unreachable /{
 }
 
 git-prune-packed $dryrun
+
+redundant=$(git-pack-redundant --all)
+if test "" != "$redundant"
+then
+	if test "" = $dryrun
+	then
+		echo "$redundant" | xargs rm -f
+	else
+		echo rm -f "$redundant"
+	fi
+fi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[H. Peter Anvin]

Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>
>> It's nice in concept, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this 
>> is a bad idea:
>>
>> - "man" doesn't handle it.  It would be another thing if "man" could 
>> be taught to understand commands like "man cvs checkout" or "man git 
>> fetch".
> 
> This is moot. man-pages can still be named git-fetch.
> 

Yes, of course, but that requires the user to be aware of yet another 
program-specific convention.  I do believe that supporting hierarchial 
man pages would be a good thing, but one has to start that in the proper 
point.

>> - There is no general way to teach shells etc about it, for tab 
>> completion etc.
> 
> Add the lib directory to the path (for git-<tab><tab>) or have it 
> auto-evaluate the result of a git command-listing.

... which means the end user has to do something specific to their 
environment.

All in all, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[H. Peter Anvin]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>May I *STRONGLY* urge you to name that something different. 
>>"lost+found" is a name with special properties in Unix; for example, 
>>many backup solutions will ignore a directory with that name.
> 
> 
> Yeah, the original proposal (in TODO list) explicitly stated why
> I chose lost-found instead of lost+found back then, and somebody
> on the list (could have been Pasky but I may be mistaken) said
> not to worry.  In any case, if we go the route Daniel suggests,
> we would not be storing anything on the filesystem ourselves so
> this would be a non-issue.
> 

Just realized one more issue with this... a lot of non-Unix filesystems 
can't deal with files with a + sign.

	-hpa

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Andreas Ericsson]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> It's nice in concept, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this 
>>> is a bad idea:
>>>
>>> - "man" doesn't handle it.  It would be another thing if "man" could 
>>> be taught to understand commands like "man cvs checkout" or "man git 
>>> fetch".
>>
>>
>> This is moot. man-pages can still be named git-fetch.
>>
> 
> Yes, of course, but that requires the user to be aware of yet another 
> program-specific convention.  I do believe that supporting hierarchial 
> man pages would be a good thing, but one has to start that in the proper 
> point.
> 

Someone sent in a (broken) patch that pulls up the proper man-page for
	git help <command>

It's a rather good idea, so I'll be working it into the C implementation 
of git as soon as the core of it is implemented.

>>> - There is no general way to teach shells etc about it, for tab 
>>> completion etc.
>>
>>
>> Add the lib directory to the path (for git-<tab><tab>) or have it 
>> auto-evaluate the result of a git command-listing.
> 
> 
> ... which means the end user has to do something specific to their 
> environment.
> 
> All in all, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.
> 

Perhaps, but allowing the possibility of splitting them can't be wrong. 
When that's in place we only have to decide if we're going to or not.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Andreas Ericsson]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>>>Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0
>>>timeframe.
>>
>>:(  bummer.  I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing 
>>stuff out of /usr/libexec/git.
> 
> 
> Bummer here as well.  This is not my first preference, but more
> or less "all things considered...".  I can go over cogito and
> stgit with Pasky and Catalin and coordinate the transition, but
> at the same time, everybody's existing scripts need to be
> adjusted.  As Linus said, we broke kernel.org snapshot scripts
> number of times.
> 
> Also places we execute git-upload-pack and git-receive-pack over
> an SSH connection need to be updated to execute 'git' with the
> first parameter 'upload-pack' and 'receive-pack' to make sure it
> would keep working with older or newer git on the other end.
> 

I've cooked up a patch that takes care of this if;
	git daemon
is executed (rather than git-daemon). Otherwise we could just mention in 
the docs that git-daemon must be run with the --libdir parameter (or 
whatever we decide to call it). If it prepends the libdir to the path 
everything will work same as always in the rest of the code so it'll be 
a very small change.

> After all that happens, we can start installing things in
> /usr/lib/git/.  During the transition, the C rewrite of git
> wrapper posted by Andreas Ericsson might help, so I am planning
> to merge it before 1.0,> after deciding what the right word for
> the "path to the rest of git executables" should be.
> 

All I really need to finalize it is that name, so It's up to you how 
fast you want it. Perhaps we could take a poll?

The suggestions so far come from the threads "git binary directory?" and 
"[PATCH] C implementation of the 'git' program" and some I just thought 
up. And here are the nominees;

	libdir
	path
	exec-path


Kay Sievers pointed out that libexec is not "LSB conformant" so it might 
be going away and is thus not listed.

exec-path was the last suggested name I got from Junio.

The form will be
	exec_path=$(prefix)/lib/git-@@VERSION@@
	GIT_EXEC_PATH
	--exec-path

for Makefile, environment and 'git', respectively. Substitute the 
obvious part with whatever you prefer.

> So let's say 1.0 will ship with all things in /usr/bin/, with
> updated docs that explain the situation: (1) the dash form
> 'git-frotz' is being deprecated, and you are encouraged to spell
> it as 'git frotz'; (2) if you want to use the dash form in your
> scripts for performance reasons, you need to have something like
> PATH="$(git --exec-path):$PATH" at the beginning of your script.
> 
> And after some time (say 2 months) we can switch.
> 

Sounds sensible, although I'm implementing Linus' idea of prepending the 
GIT_EXEC_PATH to $PATH so the porcelainish scripts in git-core shouldn't 
have to do it. If someone executes git-<script> from command-line I 
think it's safe to assume that they've added the exec-path to $PATH 
themselves. Someone *might* run

	/usr/lib/git-$GIT_VERSION/git-<script>

which should be cautioned against in the documentation.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

>> Also places we execute git-upload-pack and git-receive-pack over
>> an SSH connection need to be updated to execute 'git' with the
>> first parameter 'upload-pack' and 'receive-pack' to make sure it
>> would keep working with older or newer git on the other end.
>
> I've cooked up a patch that takes care of this if;
> 	git daemon
> is executed (rather than git-daemon)...

Actually I was more worried about these git native protocols
going over ssh, which is not helped by git-daemon.  I think
teaching the libdir to git-shell would make sense for "git
restricted shell" users, but most users coming from ssh to run
git native protocols would need to have some way of running the
executable on the other end.

My current thinking about this problem is that the handful
programs that need to run "on the other end" should stay in
/usr/bin, even after we move most things out of /usr/bin, if
only to avoid configuration hassles.  They are:

	receive-pack, upload-pack
        ssh-fetch, ssh-pull, ssh-push, ssh-upload

BTW, does anybody actually use these commit walkers over SSH?
Cogito switched out of it before 0.16r1 if I understand
correctly, and git barebone never used it.  It might not be a
bad idea to deprecate these altogether, now packed transfer
seems to be much nicer.

BTW^2, git-octopus should be deprecated as well; I am a bit
reluctant to see git-resolve go but it probably should too.

> All I really need to finalize it is that name, so It's up to you how 
> fast you want it. Perhaps we could take a poll?

Somehow libdir reminds me of where libraries are installed by
the Makefile, which usually does not mean executables, and that
was the reason I mentioned --exec-path.  Although I do not have
strong preference myself either way, I do not think the list
cares too much either, so in order not to waste time by
indecision, let's just say we use this one:

> The form will be
> 	exec_path=$(prefix)/lib/git-@@VERSION@@
> 	GIT_EXEC_PATH
> 	--exec-path
>
> for Makefile, environment and 'git', respectively. Substitute the 
> obvious part with whatever you prefer.

> ..., although I'm implementing Linus' idea of prepending the
> GIT_EXEC_PATH to $PATH so the porcelainish scripts in git-core
> shouldn't have to do it.

This sounds good to me; let's go with it.  Thanks.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Andreas Ericsson]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
> 
> 
>>>Also places we execute git-upload-pack and git-receive-pack over
>>>an SSH connection need to be updated to execute 'git' with the
>>>first parameter 'upload-pack' and 'receive-pack' to make sure it
>>>would keep working with older or newer git on the other end.
>>
>>I've cooked up a patch that takes care of this if;
>>	git daemon
>>is executed (rather than git-daemon)...
> 
> 
> Actually I was more worried about these git native protocols
> going over ssh, which is not helped by git-daemon.  I think
> teaching the libdir to git-shell would make sense for "git
> restricted shell" users, but most users coming from ssh to run
> git native protocols would need to have some way of running the
> executable on the other end.
> 
> My current thinking about this problem is that the handful
> programs that need to run "on the other end" should stay in
> /usr/bin, even after we move most things out of /usr/bin, if
> only to avoid configuration hassles.  They are:
> 
> 	receive-pack, upload-pack
>         ssh-fetch, ssh-pull, ssh-push, ssh-upload
> 

I liked your suggestion of deprecating the /usr/bin use a month or two 
before it's effected better. We could then provide symlinks for the 
necessary programs that point to their real locations in GIT_EXEC_PATH 
and (someday) drop those links when they're no longer needed.

> 
> Somehow libdir reminds me of where libraries are installed by
> the Makefile, which usually does not mean executables, and that
> was the reason I mentioned --exec-path.  Although I do not have
> strong preference myself either way, I do not think the list
> cares too much either, so in order not to waste time by
> indecision, let's just say we use this one:
> 
> 
>>The form will be
>>	exec_path=$(prefix)/lib/git-@@VERSION@@
>>	GIT_EXEC_PATH
>>	--exec-path
>>
>>for Makefile, environment and 'git', respectively. Substitute the 
>>obvious part with whatever you prefer.
> 
> 
>>..., although I'm implementing Linus' idea of prepending the
>>GIT_EXEC_PATH to $PATH so the porcelainish scripts in git-core
>>shouldn't have to do it.
> 
> 
> This sounds good to me; let's go with it.  Thanks.
> 

I'll get busy then.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Petr Baudis]

Dear diary, on Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:46:37AM CET, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> said that...
> BTW, does anybody actually use these commit walkers over SSH?
> Cogito switched out of it before 0.16r1 if I understand
> correctly, and git barebone never used it.  It might not be a
> bad idea to deprecate these altogether, now packed transfer
> seems to be much nicer.

Yes, Cogito switched out of it before 0.16rc1, but there is still plenty
of users of older Cogito versions. Well, when 0.16 is out, those should
upgrade anyway, so this could be a nice gentle kick... ;-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 0.99.9g

[Junio C Hamano]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> My current thinking about this problem is that the handful
>> programs that need to run "on the other end" should stay in
>> /usr/bin, even after we move most things out of /usr/bin, if
>> only to avoid configuration hassles.  They are:
>> 	receive-pack, upload-pack
>>         ssh-fetch, ssh-pull, ssh-push, ssh-upload
>
> I liked your suggestion of deprecating the /usr/bin use a month or two 
> before it's effected better. We could then provide symlinks for the 
> necessary programs that point to their real locations in GIT_EXEC_PATH 
> and (someday) drop those links when they're no longer needed.

Yes, but the problem is when that "someday" comes.  Unlike a
single machine installation where we can tell "git" to look into
somewhere different at the same time we move the subcommands out
of /usr/bin, "the other end" can lag behind and sometimes not
under control of the end user.

I think it's simpler to manage and can be made configuration
free if we keep receive-pack and upload-pack in /usr/bin and
always call these programs in dash-form (i.e. not "git
upload-pack") from the other end.  .bash_profile is not read for
incoming ssh connections to execute a single command, but many
people set their PATH in there, without setting PATH in .bashrc.

I personally think that having to set PATH in .bashrc it is
actually a bug in what bash does, but that is OT.