Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

[Mildred Ki'Lya]

Hi,

This is my first time on this list (and by the way, I'm not subscribed, 
so please Cc me to the replies). I have an idea that could be useful to 
make rewriting history safer and easier to new users (I'm training some 
of them). I thought I could share this idea, but perhaps someone already 
thought about it. And I'm not providing code.

The idea is to basically track automatically (in notes, either in the 
notes namespace or in another namespace) which repository/remote 
contains a commit. When doing git log, we'd see lines with each commit, 
something like:



commit b044e6d0f1a1782820b052348ab0db314e2db3ca
Author: Myself <myself@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue Nov 20 16:46:38 2012 +0100

     This is the commit description

Published on:
     origin
     git@git.host.com:pub/repo.git


Then, we could have all the history rewriting commands (such as rebase 
or pull --rebase) die when rewriting commits that are already published 
anywhere. We could make an exception for a --force/-f flag or 
configuration option, or commits published in another local repository 
owned by the same user.

In most setups, it could be useful to tell users they can safely rebase 
without worrying about published commits as Git is tracking it for them. 
Of course this is not an absolute security, but it's a good start.

What do you think?

Mildred

Re: Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

[Thomas Rast]

Mildred Ki'Lya <mildred-ml@mildred.fr> writes:

> The idea is to basically track automatically (in notes, either in the
> notes namespace or in another namespace) which repository/remote
> contains a commit. When doing git log, we'd see lines with each
> commit, something like:
>
> commit b044e6d0f1a1782820b052348ab0db314e2db3ca
> Author: Myself <myself@localhost.localdomain>
> Date:   Tue Nov 20 16:46:38 2012 +0100
>
>     This is the commit description
>
> Published on:
>     origin
>     git@git.host.com:pub/repo.git

The problem here is that doing this in notes is unreliable: you'd have
to identify all places where the set of "publishes" can change for any
commit, and update them there.

It's much easier, if a bit slower, to just run

  git branch -r --contains $commit

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch

Re: Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

[W. Trevor King]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
> It's much easier, if a bit slower, to just run
> 
>   git branch -r --contains $commit

Ah, this would be better than looping in your hook ;).

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

[Junio C Hamano]

Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:

> Mildred Ki'Lya <mildred-ml@mildred.fr> writes:
>
>> The idea is to basically track automatically (in notes, either in the
>> notes namespace or in another namespace) which repository/remote
>> contains a commit. When doing git log, we'd see lines with each
>> commit, something like:
>>
>> commit b044e6d0f1a1782820b052348ab0db314e2db3ca
>> Author: Myself <myself@localhost.localdomain>
>> Date:   Tue Nov 20 16:46:38 2012 +0100
>>
>>     This is the commit description
>>
>> Published on:
>>     origin
>>     git@git.host.com:pub/repo.git
>
> The problem here is that doing this in notes is unreliable: you'd have
> to identify all places where the set of "publishes" can change for any
> commit, and update them there.

Unreliable you can fix with effort.

But I think a bigger problem is that it is a pointless "false
economy" to attempt to record and try to maintain this note for each
and every commit.

When you push out a tip of the branch to a new location, you would
have to update notes to all commits from that tip down to where in
the history to record that new location?  To the root?  Also your
upstream may fetch from your published place and you may fetch it
back (you will notice that now the commit appears in your 'origin').
Would you do the traversal and update all notes?

It is both much easier and cheaper to compute this on demand as you
pointed out.

Re: Feature idea : notes to track status of a commit, which remotes it is shared to

[W. Trevor King]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 804 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:38:09AM +0100, Mildred Ki'Lya wrote:
> Then, we could have all the history rewriting commands (such as
> rebase or pull --rebase) die when rewriting commits that are already
> published anywhere. We could make an exception for a --force/-f flag
> or configuration option, or commits published in another local
> repository owned by the same user.

You might want to look into extending the sample pre-rebase hook,
which prevents topic branches that are already merged to 'next' branch
from getting rebased.  You'd just have to loop over all remote
references instead of only checking the local 'next' branch.

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]