* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-05-03 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso
Cc: Andreas Ericsson, Shawn Pearce, Nicolas Pitre, Paolo Ciarrocchi,
Petr Baudis, Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <20060503171538.GC9820@thunk.org>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> Yeah, but the fact that you have to use repack and prune in order to
> keep the disk space usage from exploding (especially with the Linux
> 2.6 tree) , means that we have to expose that mess to the beginning
> user.
No you don't. You get it packed when it's cloned, and the disk usage
doesn't go up _that_ fast. By the time you need to worry about disk usage
you have certainly had time to learn the basics.
No need to start talking about fsck or repacking until the second day.
> Could git be made to do the repacking automatically when it makes sense
> using some hueristic algorithm?
This was discussed, and yeah, it _could_, but I suspect you really don't
want to repack in the middle of some op. Even if your repo was _mostly_
packed, it's an irritating hickup at a time when you don't need to.
I think it's much better to teach people to repack once a week (if that).
But to teach them only after they've already _used_ it for a week and
aren't intimidated by the basic ops any longer.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git-unpack-objects
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-05-03 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Boyer; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <625fc13d0605031035l721ab08dmee6f870abb49f4e4@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> Hm.. so it seems that git-unpack-objects is more intended to unpack a
> pack one has gotten with git-fetch-pack, right?
Yeah. And for testing. I don't think it ever gets used directly.
> I was looking for something more along the lines of an
> "un-git-repack", where you have existing pack(s) and want to undo
> them. Maybe you want to repack everything into a single pack or
> something like that.
That's what you just do "git repack -a -d" for.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git-unpack-objects
From: Josh Boyer @ 2006-05-03 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605031041150.4086@g5.osdl.org>
On 5/3/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > Hm.. so it seems that git-unpack-objects is more intended to unpack a
> > pack one has gotten with git-fetch-pack, right?
>
> Yeah. And for testing. I don't think it ever gets used directly.
>
> > I was looking for something more along the lines of an
> > "un-git-repack", where you have existing pack(s) and want to undo
> > them. Maybe you want to repack everything into a single pack or
> > something like that.
>
> That's what you just do "git repack -a -d" for.
But that doesn't roll exsisting packs into a new pack, does it? I
thought it just packed loose objects into a new pack and deleted them.
I ran that on a repo that already had a couple packs in it, and the
old packs were still there.
josh
^ permalink raw reply
* git-feed-mail-list.sh
From: David Woodhouse @ 2006-05-03 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]
I've just updated the script which feeds the
git-commits-{head,24}@vger.kernel.org lists -- it now looks like this...
- Git-only; no longer uses cg-*
- No longer uses its own clone repo -- works directly from the original
- Handles MIME encoding of Subject: headers when necessary
(although this is a bit icky in shell; especially _my_ shell).
Should I be using git-format-patch for this?
--
dwmw2
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/x-shellscript, Size: 4204 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git-unpack-objects
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-05-03 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Boyer; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <625fc13d0605031044y2ff03ed2h261db5455b234254@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > That's what you just do "git repack -a -d" for.
>
> But that doesn't roll exsisting packs into a new pack, does it?
It does. That's what the "-a" (for "all") does.
I don't personally do incremental packs at all - the full repack is fast
enough on the hardware I use (especially since Junio just kicked it into
some serious performance shape) that I don't have the need for
incrementals.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Daniel Barkalow @ 2006-05-03 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Andreas Ericsson, Shawn Pearce, Nicolas Pitre,
Paolo Ciarrocchi, Petr Baudis, Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <20060503164732.GB9820@thunk.org>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Mercurial also has an easier learning curve; and while the "Everyday
> Git with 20 commands or so" is a very good document, and I've found it
> invaluable for getting started, if you compare it to the "Quick Start
> for the Impatient" page on the front page of the Mercurial Wiki, for
> many people Mercurial will *appear* to be an order of magitude simpler
> and is yet powerful enough for their project.
Actually, we could almost steal their QuickStart, replace "hg" with "git",
and have it actually be correct.
Setting up public access follows a slightly different pattern, but
otherwise, all of the operations on that page are identical or simpler in
git than as given in that document, AFAICT.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: sean @ 2006-05-03 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso
Cc: torvalds, ae, spearce, nico, paolo.ciarrocchi, pasky, junkio, git
In-Reply-To: <20060503164732.GB9820@thunk.org>
On Wed, 3 May 2006 12:47:32 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> Of course, a lot of it is that git *is* much more powerful, much like
> the difference between a stickshift with a racing clutch (git) and a
> car with an automatic transmission (hg). So maybe one thing that
> would help git would be a stronger emphasis of cogito for those
> projects that don't need the full power of using git "straight up".
The docs and higher-level user commands can still use some work, but
telling people they have to install and learn an entire extra layer
isn't going to win many converts. Personally I think Git needs a bit
more polish and to stop thinking of itself as mostly plumbing. Even so
Git really has become pretty good at making simple things simple:
init-db, add/rm, commit -a,
status, show, log, gitk, diff,
branch, checkout, clone, fetch/pull
The fact that it's faster, requires less disk space, and has all the
lower level tools you need to do "complex stuff", should make it a
tempting choice once the remaining rough edges are removed.
But there is nothing inherently complex about Git.
Sean
^ permalink raw reply
* What's in git.git
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
* The 'maint' branch has these fixes since the last announcement.
- Documentation cleanups (Sean Estabrooks)
- git-format-patch uses rfc2822 compliant date (Huw Davies).
- git-am usability fixes (Robert Shearman and me)
- Fix filename verification when in a subdirectory (Linus)
- git-send-email debuggability improvements (Martin Langhoff)
- annotate fixes (Matthias Kestenholz)
- rebase: typofix.
- commit-tree.c: check_valid() microoptimization.
- verify-pack: check integrity in a saner order.
* The 'master' branch has these since the last announcement, in
addition to the above fixes.
- gitk views and highlights enhancements (Paul Mackerras).
- repo-config -l (Petr Baudis and Johannes Schindelin)
- repo-config white-space fix (Johannes Schindelin)
- diff --stat fix.
- revision parsing more strictly checks "rev -- paths"
- t0000-basic: more commit-tree tests.
- Extended SHA1 -- "rev^@" syntax to mean "all parents"
- Fix "git help -a" terminal autosizing (Linus)
- git-fetch: resolve remote symrefs for HTTP transport (Nick Hengeveld)
- daemon: socksetup: don't return on set_reuse_addr() error (Serge E. Hallyn)
* The 'next' branch, in addition, has these.
- built-in git-count-objects
- built-in git-diff.
- built-in git-push (Linus with fix by Johannes Schindelin).
- built-in git-log.
- built-in git-grep.
These not only implement them built-in, but remove the
corresponding shell script versions. I think all of them are
ready to be pushed out, so expect them soon in your "master"
branch ;-).
- repo-config: support --get-regexp (Johannes Schindelin)
- core.prefersymlinkrefs: use symlinks for .git/HEAD
- get_sha1(): :path and :[0-3]:path to extract from index.
Needs a bit more testing.
- further diff-delta improvements (Nicolas Pitre)
Benchmark impressions are welcome on this.
- cache-tree optimization
This yields a nice speedup to (apply then write-tree)+
sequence, but is rather intrusive and risky (if somebody
forgets to invalidate a cached information the next write
tree can write out corrupt data). I am hoping we can redo
this inside the index.
- built-in git-fmt-patch
This is not ready as format-patch replacement yet; it only
does --stdout.
* The 'pu' branch, in addition, has these.
- read-tree: --prefix=<path> option.
- write-tree: --exclude=<prefix>
- write-tree: --prefix=<path>
These were originally done as part of "bind commit" series,
but are useful outside the context of subproject support.
read-tree --prefix=<path> allows you to graft a tree object
at a subdirectory in an already populated index, and
write-tree --prefix=<path> allows you to write out only a
subdirectory out of an index as a tree object. I am not in
an urgent need for these features, but if some Porcelain
finds them useful, they can be merged to "next".
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: David Lang @ 2006-05-03 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <e3al00$1dj$1@sea.gmane.org>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> As to content, we could I think use material found at Wikipedia Git page,
> and on External Links in Wikipedia Git_(software) article, not repeating of
> course what is in official Git Documentation/
please go ahead and put a lot of the info that is in the GIT
Documentation/ on the wiki. it's far easier to go to one site and browse
around to find things then to run into issues where you have to go
somewhere else (with different tools) to find the info.
even if you just put all the documentation files there, as-is (as text
files even, no hyperlinks in them) they should still be there.
David Lang
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Petr Baudis @ 2006-05-03 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Lang; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605031218570.12716@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:21:54PM CEST, I got a letter
where David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com> said that...
> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
> >As to content, we could I think use material found at Wikipedia Git page,
> >and on External Links in Wikipedia Git_(software) article, not repeating of
> >course what is in official Git Documentation/
>
> please go ahead and put a lot of the info that is in the GIT
> Documentation/ on the wiki. it's far easier to go to one site and browse
> around to find things then to run into issues where you have to go
> somewhere else (with different tools) to find the info.
>
> even if you just put all the documentation files there, as-is (as text
> files even, no hyperlinks in them) they should still be there.
Then who will keep it in sync (BOTH ways)? That would be quite a lot of
work, I think.
That said, having the documentation in a wiki is not a bad idea per se,
but you need to keep things consistent and converging. And I believe
(and hope) that killing Documentation/ directory is no option - I hate
it when documentation of software I installed just tells me "look at
this URI" (which documents a different version anyway, and it's all very
useful when I'm sitting in a train with my notebook).
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think
I have forgotten this before.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: David Lang @ 2006-05-03 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Baudis; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, git
In-Reply-To: <20060503193013.GN27689@pasky.or.cz>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:21:54PM CEST, I got a letter
> where David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com> said that...
>> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>
>>> As to content, we could I think use material found at Wikipedia Git page,
>>> and on External Links in Wikipedia Git_(software) article, not repeating of
>>> course what is in official Git Documentation/
>>
>> please go ahead and put a lot of the info that is in the GIT
>> Documentation/ on the wiki. it's far easier to go to one site and browse
>> around to find things then to run into issues where you have to go
>> somewhere else (with different tools) to find the info.
>>
>> even if you just put all the documentation files there, as-is (as text
>> files even, no hyperlinks in them) they should still be there.
>
> Then who will keep it in sync (BOTH ways)? That would be quite a lot of
> work, I think.
>
> That said, having the documentation in a wiki is not a bad idea per se,
> but you need to keep things consistent and converging. And I believe
> (and hope) that killing Documentation/ directory is no option - I hate
> it when documentation of software I installed just tells me "look at
> this URI" (which documents a different version anyway, and it's all very
> useful when I'm sitting in a train with my notebook).
I agree with this completely.
as for keeping it in sync, the ideal situation would be for a
documentation manager to take that job ;-) but lacking that just put the
documentation in a non-editable page somewhere and link to it from the
wiki (this could even be pages at kernel.org or wherever you have the raw
source available outside of git itself)
David Lang
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Problem using GIT CVS-server
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Langhoff; +Cc: git, Panagiotis Issaris
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90605030411o29af1d1bra3276353347516f6@mail.gmail.com>
"Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/3/06, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmmm. 100% reproduceable -- looking at it now.
>
> Grumble. Some recent change has broken cvsserver -- if I rewind to the
> commit I made of cvsserver, the checkout works correctly. I suspect
> changes to git-diff-tree. However, I'll play dumb and try bisect to
> see where it leads...
Ah, the "master" git-log is C-rewrite version and does not show
the parents on the "commit (.*)" line itself with --parents.
Could you see if the attached patch helps?
When Linus and I did the rewrite, we tried to be somewhat
careful not to break people's expectations, but at the same
time, we considered that the log/show/whatchanged frontends to
rev-list are primarily for human consumption, so we "improved"
the details a bit [*1*], which obviously broke cvsserver's use
of git-log.
*1* Another difference I know about is that whatchanged used to
start an entry with "diff-tree" but now says "commit" like
others in "log" family of frontends.
-- >8 --
diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl
index 11d153c..71e384c 100755
--- a/git-cvsserver.perl
+++ b/git-cvsserver.perl
@@ -2076,14 +2076,15 @@ sub update
# TODO: log processing is memory bound
# if we can parse into a 2nd file that is in reverse order
# we can probably do something really efficient
- my @git_log_params = ('--parents', '--topo-order');
+ my @git_rl_params = ('--parents', '--topo-order', '--pretty');
if (defined $lastcommit) {
- push @git_log_params, "$lastcommit..$self->{module}";
+ push @git_rl_params, "$lastcommit..$self->{module}";
} else {
- push @git_log_params, $self->{module};
+ push @git_rl_params, $self->{module};
}
- open(GITLOG, '-|', 'git-log', @git_log_params) or die "Cannot call git-log: $!";
+ open(GITLOG, '-|', 'git-rev-list',
+ @git_rl_params) or die "Cannot call git-rev-list: $!";
my @commits;
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Petr Baudis @ 2006-05-03 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Lang; +Cc: Jakub Narebski, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605031243230.12716@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:46:33PM CEST, I got a letter
where David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com> said that...
> as for keeping it in sync, the ideal situation would be for a
> documentation manager to take that job ;-) but lacking that just put the
> documentation in a non-editable page somewhere and link to it from the
> wiki (this could even be pages at kernel.org or wherever you have the raw
> source available outside of git itself)
Well, that one is pretty easy.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/cogito/docs/
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think
I have forgotten this before.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605030817580.4086@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> Which brings me to the final point, which is that I think the hg team was
> very active and supporting, perhaps Matt himself. That's _important_ - the
> OpenSolaris people probably felt very comfortable with strong support from
> the developers. It can often be _the_ best (and biggest) reason to choose
> any product - regardless of anything else.
I agree with this 100%. I happened to be talking with Eric
about the clone breakage he was having on #git channel, and I
asked him to help me diagnose the problem, which resulted in the
solution we saw on the list. It turned out to be the same
"1.2.2 works but 1.2.4 not" problem OpenSolaris evaluator was
having. I was never contacted from somebody in the OpenSolaris
circle during the whole exercise.
But reading their Mercurial report apparently suggests that
their hg evaluator was with direct contact with the right
community from early on. I still do not even know (I've seen it
once in _their_ report) who the git evaluator on their end was.
I am not surprised that the difference in depth of involvements
and contact between the development community and the respective
evaluator contributed to the result in a major way.
> Even if I think the git mailing list itself is very responsive, I think
> the hg people were just more directly and actively involved. For git, they
> had to come to us.
That is _very_ unfair to me. It is not like git and hg both
submitted proposals to be chosen by them and then we dropped the
ball by not supporting them properly. They have to come to us.
The time I personally became aware about their DSCM selection
contest was when its initial phase was almost over; even if I
were willing to help them, it was too late. And no, I do not
have enough time to go fishing for such opportunities everywhere
to help many random projects, either.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <7vy7xibzbj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> I agree with this 100%. I happened to be talking with Eric
> about the clone breakage he was having on #git channel, and I
Sorry, my memory is failing. It was Oejet I was talking with.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Problem using GIT CVS-server
From: Martin Langhoff @ 2006-05-03 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Panagiotis Issaris
In-Reply-To: <7v1wvaevno.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On 5/4/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Ah, the "master" git-log is C-rewrite version and does not show
> the parents on the "commit (.*)" line itself with --parents.
Exactly.
> Could you see if the attached patch helps?
Will try it in a moment. Having thought about it, git-log is always
going to be tweaked for human consumption, so I should use something
geared for porcelains instead. git-rev-list does honour --parent, so
perhaps I should switch to using that instead?
cheers,
martin
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Problem using GIT CVS-server
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Langhoff; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90605031412s363b4a79p548c75956b00adbf@mail.gmail.com>
"Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:
>> Could you see if the attached patch helps?
>
> Will try it in a moment. Having thought about it, git-log is always
> going to be tweaked for human consumption, so I should use something
> geared for porcelains instead. git-rev-list does honour --parent, so
> perhaps I should switch to using that instead?
I think that reasoning is prudent, but at the same time I think
the patch by Linus is also right, so I think we should do both
for this particular case.
Sorry about the breakage.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] blame: Fix path pruning
From: Fredrik Kuivinen @ 2006-05-03 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: junkio
This makes git-blame useable again, it has been totally broken for
some time on larger repositories.
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
---
blame.c | 10 +++++-----
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/blame.c b/blame.c
index 07d2d27..99ceea8 100644
--- a/blame.c
+++ b/blame.c
@@ -515,9 +515,9 @@ static int compare_tree_path(struct rev_
paths[1] = NULL;
diff_tree_setup_paths(get_pathspec(revs->prefix, paths),
- &revs->diffopt);
+ &revs->pruning);
ret = rev_compare_tree(revs, c1->tree, c2->tree);
- diff_tree_release_paths(&revs->diffopt);
+ diff_tree_release_paths(&revs->pruning);
return ret;
}
@@ -531,9 +531,9 @@ static int same_tree_as_empty_path(struc
paths[1] = NULL;
diff_tree_setup_paths(get_pathspec(revs->prefix, paths),
- &revs->diffopt);
+ &revs->pruning);
ret = rev_same_tree_as_empty(revs, t1);
- diff_tree_release_paths(&revs->diffopt);
+ diff_tree_release_paths(&revs->pruning);
return ret;
}
@@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv)
args[0] = filename;
args[1] = NULL;
- diff_tree_setup_paths(args, &rev.diffopt);
+ diff_tree_setup_paths(args, &rev.pruning);
prepare_revision_walk(&rev);
process_commits(&rev, filename, &initial);
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [RFC] Terms to add to glossary
From: Jon Loeliger @ 2006-05-03 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: Git List
In-Reply-To: <e332g6$hpl$1@sea.gmane.org>
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 14:18, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> I'd like the following terms to be added to and described in git glossary:
> Any takers?
If someone hasn't beaten me to it, I have (most)
of them read to be sent in... Lemme go home
and dig around some...
jdl
^ permalink raw reply
* [WARNING] please stop using git.git "next" for now
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-05-03 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: linux-kernel
I just noticed there is a breakage in write-tree optimization
that uses the new cache-tree data structure in the "next"
branch. Switching branches with "git checkout anotherbranch"
when your index exactly matches the current HEAD commit and then
immediately doing write-tree produces a nonsense tree, and
commits on top of that results in tree objects that have
duplicated entries.
I will be working on a fix now, but in the meantime please do
not use the "next" branch for real work. Sorry for the
breakage.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2006-05-03 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <7vy7xibzbj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Even if I think the git mailing list itself is very responsive, I think
> > the hg people were just more directly and actively involved. For git, they
> > had to come to us.
>
> That is _very_ unfair to me. It is not like git and hg both
> submitted proposals to be chosen by them and then we dropped the
> ball by not supporting them properly. They have to come to us.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. Of _course_ they should have come
to us with their issues.
So I don't think git was doing anything wrong there, I was just stating it
as a neutral fact, rather than any criticism - the hg people were involved
(and I think they were pushing it), and the git people weren't, because
they never came to us.
Not a big deal. I actually think we'll be better off with some competition
to keep us on our toes.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git-log --parents broken post v1.3.0
From: Martin Langhoff @ 2006-05-03 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605030745550.4086@g5.osdl.org>
On 5/4/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> That said, I suspect a git-cvsserver kind of usage is better off using
> "git-rev-list --parents HEAD" instead, which didn't break in the first
> place.
After a good sleep, I woke up thinking exactly the same. Patch coming soon.
m
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2006-05-03 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Theodore Tso, Andreas Ericsson, Shawn Pearce, Nicolas Pitre,
Paolo Ciarrocchi, Petr Baudis, Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605030958370.4086@g5.osdl.org>
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:06:25AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Even the "everyday git in 20 commands" actually starts out scaring people
> with listing commands that they don't need to know about immediately.
20 commands is much more than I use in my daily use of git.
Lets see:
git clone
git diff
git reset --hard
git ls-files
git grep
git add
git rm
cg-commit
cg-restore
git push
git am
I may have missed one or two - but this is it. Lees then 20.
And I never use pack or fsck.
It is not that difficult. A few cogito commands creeped in also. I just
find them easier to use.
In other words - the tutorials are covering too much as stated by
others.
Sam
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki
From: Petr Baudis @ 2006-05-03 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Ravnborg
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Theodore Tso, Andreas Ericsson, Shawn Pearce,
Nicolas Pitre, Paolo Ciarrocchi, Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <20060503223932.GA28081@mars.ravnborg.org>
Dear diary, on Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:39:32AM CEST, I got a letter
where Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> said that...
> 20 commands is much more than I use in my daily use of git.
>
> Lets see:
> git clone
> git diff
> git reset --hard
> git ls-files
> git grep
> git add
> git rm
> cg-commit
> cg-restore
> git push
> git am
I think git ls-files isn't used directly very frequently. OTOH, you
don't use cg-log or git log and cg-status/git status? :) Also, most
people will pull.
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think
I have forgotten this before.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] cvsserver: use git-rev-list instead of git-log
From: Martin Langhoff @ 2006-05-03 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git, junkio; +Cc: Martin Langhoff
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605030745550.4086@g5.osdl.org>
On 5/4/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> No it wasn't. "git log --parents" was definitely supposed to still work.
>
> That said, I suspect a git-cvsserver kind of usage is better off using
> "git-rev-list --parents HEAD" instead, which didn't break in the first
> place.
Signed-off-by: Martin Langhoff <martin@catalyst.net.nz>
---
git-cvsserver.perl | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
a248c9614fdd130229fb5f9565abbd77bd1d0cc9
diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl
index 11d153c..ffd9c66 100755
--- a/git-cvsserver.perl
+++ b/git-cvsserver.perl
@@ -2076,14 +2076,15 @@ sub update
# TODO: log processing is memory bound
# if we can parse into a 2nd file that is in reverse order
# we can probably do something really efficient
- my @git_log_params = ('--parents', '--topo-order');
+ my @git_log_params = ('--pretty', '--parents', '--topo-order');
if (defined $lastcommit) {
push @git_log_params, "$lastcommit..$self->{module}";
} else {
push @git_log_params, $self->{module};
}
- open(GITLOG, '-|', 'git-log', @git_log_params) or die "Cannot call git-log: $!";
+ # git-rev-list is the backend / plumbing version of git-log
+ open(GITLOG, '-|', 'git-rev-list', @git_log_params) or die "Cannot call git-rev-list: $!";
my @commits;
--
1.3.1.g24e1-dirty
^ permalink raw reply related
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox