[PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Johannes Schindelin]

Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
cannot commit anyway.

But in most cases, the index _is_ up-to-date, and now I can tell
my fellow former users that their repository XYZ.git does not have any
uncommitted changes, so can they please delete it to free up some disk
space, thank you very much.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 builtin-commit.c |   12 +++++++-----
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c
index 55676fd..9eccc51 100644
--- a/builtin-commit.c
+++ b/builtin-commit.c
@@ -325,11 +325,13 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix, int
 	 * We still need to refresh the index here.
 	 */
 	if (!pathspec || !*pathspec) {
-		fd = hold_locked_index(&index_lock, 1);
-		refresh_cache_or_die(refresh_flags);
-		if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) ||
-		    commit_locked_index(&index_lock))
-			die("unable to write new_index file");
+		fd = hold_locked_index(&index_lock, 0);
+		if (fd >= 0) {
+			refresh_cache_or_die(refresh_flags);
+			if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) ||
+			    commit_locked_index(&index_lock))
+				die("unable to write new_index file");
+		}
 		commit_style = COMMIT_AS_IS;
 		return get_index_file();
 	}
-- 
1.6.4.297.gcb4cc

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Jeff King]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
> There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
> write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
> cannot commit anyway.

I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
has been merged.

I don't know if it is worth putting your fix onto maint.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Jeff King wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
> > There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
> > write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
> > cannot commit anyway.
> 
> I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
> needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
> has been merged.

I was working on top of 'next'.  And only after I fetched afresh from 
git://repo.or.cz/git.git/.

So for me and my nerves, the patch series came way too late.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > > Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
> > > There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
> > > write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
> > > cannot commit anyway.
> > 
> > I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
> > needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
> > has been merged.
> 
> I was working on top of 'next'.  And only after I fetched afresh from 
> git://repo.or.cz/git.git/.

To be precise, the commit I based mine on is 
2cd0ddca4b6f2ff24fcd7b24030c97ec20ead85c which was done on Mon Jan 18 
18:34:16 2010 -0800 according to Git.

Ciao,
Dscho "who will think 3 times before making a patch next time"

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
>> There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
>> write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
>> cannot commit anyway.
>
> I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
> needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
> has been merged.
>
> I don't know if it is worth putting your fix onto maint.

I think the patch itself makes sense, even though the log message seems to
be with more noise and frustrationthan with useful information.

And "for the very last time" is probably a good characterization, as
status will no longer be "commit --dry-run" in the coming release ;-)

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Junio C Hamano]

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

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>>> Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
>>> There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
>>> write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
>>> cannot commit anyway.
>>
>> I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
>> needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
>> has been merged.
>>
>> I don't know if it is worth putting your fix onto maint.
>
> I think the patch itself makes sense,...

Actually, I think it was somewhat a selfish patch and forgot that the
codepath is shared with a mode of operation where we should guarantee
that the index is updated, namely "git commit".

I think this would be a good addition to 'maint'.  I am not sure if it is
worth forward-porting to "commit --dry-run", though.  On one hand, it
might show what would happen if you ran "commit" better (i.e. you will be
told that you cannot write into it), but it is debatable if that is the
reason why people may want to run "commit --dry-run".

-- >8 --
Subject: status: don't require the repository to be writable

We need to update the index before hooks run when actually making a
commit, but we shouldn't have to write the index when running "status".
If we can, then we have already spent cycles to refresh the index and
it is a waste not to write it out, but it is not a disaster if we cannot
write it out.  The main reason the user is running "git status" is to get
the "status", and refreshing the index is a mere side effect that we can
do without.

Discovery and initial attempted fix by Dscho.

---

 builtin-commit.c |   10 ++++++----
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c
index 33aa593..83b7c35 100644
--- a/builtin-commit.c
+++ b/builtin-commit.c
@@ -278,11 +278,13 @@ static char *prepare_index(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix, int
 	 * We still need to refresh the index here.
 	 */
 	if (!pathspec || !*pathspec) {
-		fd = hold_locked_index(&index_lock, 1);
+		fd = hold_locked_index(&index_lock, !is_status);
 		refresh_cache(refresh_flags);
-		if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) ||
-		    commit_locked_index(&index_lock))
-			die("unable to write new_index file");
+		if (0 <= fd) {
+			if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) ||
+			    commit_locked_index(&index_lock))
+				die("unable to write new_index file");
+		}
 		commit_style = COMMIT_AS_IS;
 		return get_index_file();
 	}

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> >> Today, git status played violin on my nerves for the very last time.
> >> There is no good reason, really none, for git status to require
> >> write permissions.  If the index is not up-to-date, so be it, I
> >> cannot commit anyway.
> >
> > I agree it is annoying, but this patch does not apply (and is no longer
> > needed) on master since the status-is-no-longer-commit-dry-run series
> > has been merged.
> >
> > I don't know if it is worth putting your fix onto maint.
> 
> I think the patch itself makes sense, even though the log message seems to
> be with more noise and frustrationthan with useful information.

If you think so.

> And "for the very last time" is probably a good characterization, as
> status will no longer be "commit --dry-run" in the coming release ;-)

This comment was because I was fully prepared to do the same as with so 
many patches: keep them in my personal repository until time finally tells 
that that patch should go into 'next'.

And as you realized, I managed to forget a commit --amend, which would 
have replaced 1 with !is_status.

BTW you can tell me directly that you do not want any patches from me 
anymore, rather than dancing around the issue.  I kind of figured that 
already anyway.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] git status: do not require write permission

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> BTW you can tell me directly that you do not want any patches from me 
> anymore, rather than dancing around the issue.  I kind of figured that 
> already anyway.

Oh, what gave you that impression?

I don't like getting patches that go only halfway, making things work
better for some people but at the same time breaking things for others,
without following thorough for a long time, and that is regardless of
where the patches came from.

They linger on 'pu' forever and forces me to choose one of the three
outcome:

 (1) discard it, even if it is promising;

 (2) make myself a janitor and filling the gap;

 (3) keep it on 'pu' even longer, while occassionally suffering merge
     conflicts with topics that touch the same textual area from more
     responsive people.

I try to avoid (1) but I obviously don't want to do (2), especially when
I know the topic originally came from a capable hand.

If anything, the more promising the patch series that the original author
didn't follow through, the worse it will make me feel to discard it.  If
you feel that I get grumpy about many of your patches not followed through
than about other people's patches, perhaps it is a sign that I consider
that the aim (not necessarily the execution) of your topics are better
than the topics from others.

So don't take it personally.