From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Carlos Martín Nieto" <cmn@elego.de>,
"Michael Schubert" <mschub@elegosoft.com>,
"Johan Herland" <johan@herland.net>, "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>,
"Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>,
"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@fluxnic.net>,
"John Szakmeister" <john@szakmeister.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] fetch --prune: prune only based on explicit refspecs
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:49:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <526B65E8.1070900@alum.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiowmml0y.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On 10/24/2013 11:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> ...
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
>
> Everything in the proposed log message made sense to me.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt
>> index d4d93c9..83c1700 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/config.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/config.txt
>> @@ -2086,7 +2086,7 @@ remote.<name>.vcs::
>> remote.<name>.prune::
>> When set to true, fetching from this remote by default will also
>> remove any remote-tracking branches which no longer exist on the
>> - remote (as if the `--prune` option was give on the command line).
>> + remote (as if the `--prune` option was given on the command line).
>
> Shouldn't we stop saying "branches" here?
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/fetch-options.txt b/Documentation/fetch-options.txt
>> index 0e6d2ac..5d12219 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/fetch-options.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/fetch-options.txt
>> @@ -41,8 +41,14 @@ ifndef::git-pull[]
>>
>> -p::
>> --prune::
>> - After fetching, remove any remote-tracking branches which
>> - no longer exist on the remote.
>> + After fetching, remove any remote-tracking branches that
>
> Likewise. This is a lot more important than the one in
> remote.<name>.prune documentation, as the next sentence "Tags are
> not subject to ..." implies that they fall into the same category as
> what gets pruned here, i.e. "remote-tracking branches" in the above
> sentence, but nobody calls refs/tags/v1.0.0 a "remote-tracking
> branch" even if it came from your 'origin'.
OK, I will change both of the above from "remote-tracking branches" to
"remote-tracking references".
>> + no longer exist on the remote. Tags are not subject to
>> + pruning in the usual case that they are fetched because of the
>> + --tags option or remote.<name>.tagopt.
>
> We should mention the most usual case tags are fetched, before
> mentioning the case the unusual option "--tags" was used from the
> command line or .tagopt configuration was used. Namely, when the
> tags are automatically followed.
OK, I will change this in the next draft.
>> @@ -63,7 +69,10 @@ ifndef::git-pull[]
>> --tags::
>> This is a short-hand requesting that all tags be fetched from
>> the remote in addition to whatever else is being fetched. It
>> - is similar to using the refspec `refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*`.
>> + is similar to using the refspec `refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*`,
>> + except that it doesn't subject tags to pruning, regardless of
>> + a --prune option or the configuration settings of fetch.prune
>> + or remote.<name>.prune.
>
> Using --tags is not similar to using refs/tags/*:refs/tags/* after
> the previous patch already; "git fetch origin --tags" and "git fetch
> origin refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*" are vastly different and that was
> the whole point of the previous step. And that "calling something
> not so similar similar" needs to be fixed further here to clarify
> that they are not similar in yet another way.
>
> We should just lose "It is similar to using" from 10/15 and start
> over, perhaps? Add the first paragraph of the below in 10/15 and
> add the rest in 11/15, or something.
>
> --tags::
> Request that all tags be fetched from the remote
> under the same name (i.e. `refs/tags/X` is created in
> our repository by copying their `refs/tags/X`), in
> addition to whatever is fetched by the same `git
> fetch` command without this option on the command
> line.
> +
> When `refs/tags/*` hierarchy from the remote is copied only
> because this option was given, they are not subject to be
> pruned when `--prune` option (or configuration variables
> like `fetch.prune` or `remote.<name>.prune`) is in effect.
>
> That would make it clear that they are subject to pruning when --mirror
> or an explicit refspec refs/tags/*:refs/tags/* is given, as tags are
> not fetched "only because of --tags" in such cases.
I see your point. What do you think about the following version, which
is a bit more compact and refers the reader to --prune for the full story:
-t::
--tags::
Fetch all tags from the remote (i.e., fetch remote tags
`refs/tags/*` into local tags with the same name), in addition
to whatever else would otherwise be fetched. Using this
option does not subject tags to pruning, even if --prune is
used (though tags may be pruned anyway if they are also the
destination of an explicit refspec; see '--prune').
I also want to improve the description of tag auto-following in general.
I will send a re-rolled patch series in the next couple of days.
Thanks for your prompt and helpful advice!
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-26 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-13 2:54 Local tag killer Michael Haggerty
2013-09-13 4:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-20 22:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-09-21 6:42 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-09-21 12:28 ` John Szakmeister
2013-09-24 7:51 ` Jeff King
2013-09-24 13:22 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-09-25 8:22 ` Jeff King
2013-09-25 22:54 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-28 12:20 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-09-28 21:42 ` Johan Herland
2013-09-29 4:29 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-09-29 9:30 ` Johan Herland
2013-09-30 15:24 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-09-30 15:52 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-30 19:16 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-09-30 20:08 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-30 21:14 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-09-30 22:44 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-30 23:18 ` Jeff King
2013-10-01 3:04 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-10-01 3:28 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-10-01 12:45 ` Marc Branchaud
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 00/15] Change semantics of "fetch --tags" Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 01/15] t5510: use the correct tag name in test Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 02/15] t5510: prepare test refs more straightforwardly Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 18:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-24 6:49 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-24 19:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 03/15] t5510: check that "git fetch --prune --tags" does not prune branches Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 04/15] api-remote.txt: correct section "struct refspect" Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 18:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-24 7:06 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 05/15] get_ref_map(): rename local variables Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 18:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-24 7:24 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 06/15] ref_remove_duplicates(): avoid redundant bisection Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 07/15] ref_remove_duplicates(): simplify function Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 08/15] ref_remove_duplicates(): improve documentation comment Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 18:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 09/15] builtin/fetch.c: reorder function definitions Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 10/15] fetch --tags: fetch tags *in addition to* other stuff Michael Haggerty
2013-10-24 20:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-25 15:08 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-28 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-30 4:26 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-26 5:10 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 11/15] fetch --prune: prune only based on explicit refspecs Michael Haggerty
2013-10-24 21:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-26 6:49 ` Michael Haggerty [this message]
2013-10-28 15:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 12/15] query_refspecs(): move some constants out of the loop Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 13/15] builtin/remote.c: reorder function definitions Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 14/15] builtin/remote.c:update(): use struct argv_array Michael Haggerty
2013-10-23 15:50 ` [PATCH 15/15] fetch, remote: properly convey --no-prune options to subprocesses Michael Haggerty
2013-10-24 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-10-23 16:59 ` [PATCH 00/15] Change semantics of "fetch --tags" Junio C Hamano
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=526B65E8.1070900@alum.mit.edu \
--to=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=cmn@elego.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=johan@herland.net \
--cc=john@szakmeister.net \
--cc=marcnarc@xiplink.com \
--cc=mschub@elegosoft.com \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=peff@peff.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).