* Re: [PATCH] builtin-commit: Refresh cache after adding files.
From: Kristian Høgsberg @ 2007-11-09 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: gitster, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091722520.4362@racer.site>
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 17:24 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian H?gsberg wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 17:05 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > This fixes the race in the last test int t3700.
> > >
> > > Well, it is not a race. My fault. I thought it was.
> > >
> > > What you basically did was to make sure that the index is up-to-date
> > > after adding the files. You might even want to say that in the commit
> > > message, and only then say that it fixes t3700, too.
> >
> > OK, I guess what I was wondering was why write_cache() doesn't write out
> > an up-to-date index.
>
> write_cache() only writes the index, it does not update it.
>
> > Do we need a call to refresh_cache() when we update the user cache but
> > commit an index created from read_tree+add_files? I.e. after the
> > add_files_to_index() call on line 97? The shell script doesn't do this,
> > it only runs update-index --refresh for the index that gets committed.
>
> I think it would be sane to do so.
>
> IIUC this basically means that "git add <file> && git commit" should do
> the same to the cache as "git commit <file>".
No, that's equivalent to "git commit -i <file>". If you just say "git
commit <file>", that will create a temporary index initialized to HEAD,
add file to that index and the regular (user) index, and then commit the
temporary index file. The shell script doesn't refresh the regular
index in this case. I think it makes sense to add that, but it will be
a subtle difference in behaviour.
cheers,
Kristian
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Inconsistencies with git log
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-11-09 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910711090920m6b0b7704x7c5a3849215f385c@mail.gmail.com>
Jon Smirl wrote:
> The summary of this is that new users do not expect "git log" to give
> them the whole log when the command is executed in a subdirectory.
> This causes a training burden because of the unexpected behavior. They
> try 'git log' and then I have to tell them to use "git log ."
That's too bad, that they have to unlearn bad expectations. Having
"git log" _always_ meaning whole history is very useful. You can always
do "git log ." (two characters more); how do you propose to request
full history from within subdirectory if by default "git log" output
would limit history to current directory only?
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Inconsistencies with git log
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2007-11-09 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Smirl; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910711090920m6b0b7704x7c5a3849215f385c@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> The summary of this is that new users do not expect "git log" to give
> them the whole log when the command is executed in a subdirectory.
> This causes a training burden because of the unexpected behavior. They
> try 'git log' and then I have to tell them to use "git log ."
No. The summary is that *you* are confused.
The fact is, "git log" always has given the whole log, and there is no
confusion at all. The only people who may be confused are people who
misread the documentation on purpose, or who came from some broken other
SCM, and are confused just because of *that*.
Git makes it very clear indeed at all points that it tracks whole history.
It's a big deal. We *make* a big deal about it, and "git log" follows that
very consistently.
In fact, even at the top-of-tree, "git log" and "git log ." are two
totally different things, even if in practice the differences are often
hard to see. But one gives the "full history", and the other gives the
"simplified history for the pathnames given", and the two are REALLY
REALLY different.
Try it. Do
git log origin/pu > full
git log origin/pu . > limited
in the git tree, and look at the differences (it might be useful to use
gitk instead, and look at where the differences start! That visual
difference is going to give you a lot more of an "Ahaa!" moment when you
understand it). When you can explain and understand those differences,
then you *really* understand git (and quite frankly, it's actually rather
simple, but you have to really *think* about what those things things
are).
Now, for normal use you never need to really to care. Git does a lot of
things, and some random user will seldom need the full power of git, nor
do they need to really care about why "git log ." and "git log" are
actually not the same thing at all, even at the top level.
But you're blaming git for your *own* confusion, which probably comes from
crap systems that don't even know what "history" is because they can't
really track it right anyway.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] add a howto document about corrupted blob recovery
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-11-09 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Linus Torvalds, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0711091221210.21255@xanadu.home>
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Extracted from a post by Linus on the mailing list.
Heh. I was hoping that somebody would be quicker than me...
Ciao,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] add a howto document about corrupted blob recovery
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2007-11-09 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0711090758560.15101@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Extracted from a post by Linus on the mailing list.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
---
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But since you don't seem to have backups right now, the good news is that
> especially with a single blob being corrupt, these things *are* somewhat
> debuggable.
I was in the process of writing a similar message, but Linus was quicker
and his version is actually much nicer. Certainly good howto material.
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/recover-corrupted-blob-object.txt b/Documentation/howto/recover-corrupted-blob-object.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9b6853c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/howto/recover-corrupted-blob-object.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:28:38 -0800 (PST)
+From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
+Subject: corrupt object on git-gc
+Abstract: Some tricks to reconstruct blob objects in order to fix
+ a corrupted repository.
+
+On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
+>
+> Did not help still the repository look for this object?
+> Any one know how can I track this object and understand which file is it
+
+So exactly *because* the SHA1 hash is cryptographically secure, the hash
+itself doesn't actually tell you anything, in order to fix a corrupt
+object you basically have to find the "original source" for it.
+
+The easiest way to do that is almost always to have backups, and find the
+same object somewhere else. Backups really are a good idea, and git makes
+it pretty easy (if nothing else, just clone the repository somewhere else,
+and make sure that you do *not* use a hard-linked clone, and preferably
+not the same disk/machine).
+
+But since you don't seem to have backups right now, the good news is that
+especially with a single blob being corrupt, these things *are* somewhat
+debuggable.
+
+First off, move the corrupt object away, and *save* it. The most common
+cause of corruption so far has been memory corruption, but even so, there
+are people who would be interested in seeing the corruption - but it's
+basically impossible to judge the corruption until we can also see the
+original object, so right now the corrupt object is useless, but it's very
+interesting for the future, in the hope that you can re-create a
+non-corrupt version.
+
+So:
+
+> ib]$ mv .git/objects/4b/9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200 ../
+
+This is the right thing to do, although it's usually best to save it under
+it's full SHA1 name (you just dropped the "4b" from the result ;).
+
+Let's see what that tells us:
+
+> ib]$ git-fsck --full
+> broken link from tree 2d9263c6d23595e7cb2a21e5ebbb53655278dff8
+> to blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
+> missing blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
+
+Ok, I removed the "dangling commit" messages, because they are just
+messages about the fact that you probably have rebased etc, so they're not
+at all interesting. But what remains is still very useful. In particular,
+we now know which tree points to it!
+
+Now you can do
+
+ git ls-tree 2d9263c6d23595e7cb2a21e5ebbb53655278dff8
+
+which will show something like
+
+ 100644 blob 8d14531846b95bfa3564b58ccfb7913a034323b8 .gitignore
+ 100644 blob ebf9bf84da0aab5ed944264a5db2a65fe3a3e883 .mailmap
+ 100644 blob ca442d313d86dc67e0a2e5d584b465bd382cbf5c COPYING
+ 100644 blob ee909f2cc49e54f0799a4739d24c4cb9151ae453 CREDITS
+ 040000 tree 0f5f709c17ad89e72bdbbef6ea221c69807009f6 Documentation
+ 100644 blob 1570d248ad9237e4fa6e4d079336b9da62d9ba32 Kbuild
+ 100644 blob 1c7c229a092665b11cd46a25dbd40feeb31661d9 MAINTAINERS
+ ...
+
+and you should now have a line that looks like
+
+ 10064 blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200 my-magic-file
+
+in the output. This already tells you a *lot* it tells you what file the
+corrupt blob came from!
+
+Now, it doesn't tell you quite enough, though: it doesn't tell what
+*version* of the file didn't get correctly written! You might be really
+lucky, and it may be the version that you already have checked out in your
+working tree, in which case fixing this problem is really simple, just do
+
+ git hash-object -w my-magic-file
+
+again, and if it outputs the missing SHA1 (4b945..) you're now all done!
+
+But that's the really lucky case, so let's assume that it was some older
+version that was broken. How do you tell which version it was?
+
+The easiest way to do it is to do
+
+ git log --raw --all --full-history -- subdirectory/my-magic-file
+
+and that will show you the whole log for that file (please realize that
+the tree you had may not be the top-level tree, so you need to figure out
+which subdirectory it was in on your own), and because you're asking for
+raw output, you'll now get something like
+
+ commit abc
+ Author:
+ Date:
+ ..
+ :100644 100644 4b9458b... newsha... M somedirectory/my-magic-file
+
+
+ commit xyz
+ Author:
+ Date:
+
+ ..
+ :100644 100644 oldsha... 4b9458b... M somedirectory/my-magic-file
+
+and this actually tells you what the *previous* and *subsequent* versions
+of that file were! So now you can look at those ("oldsha" and "newsha"
+respectively), and hopefully you have done commits often, and can
+re-create the missing my-magic-file version by looking at those older and
+newer versions!
+
+If you can do that, you can now recreate the missing object with
+
+ git hash-object -w <recreated-file>
+
+and your repository is good again!
+
+(Btw, you could have ignored the fsck, and started with doing a
+
+ git log --raw --all
+
+and just looked for the sha of the missing object (4b9458b..) in that
+whole thing. It's up to you - git does *have* a lot of information, it is
+just missing one particular blob version.
+
+Trying to recreate trees and especially commits is *much* harder. So you
+were lucky that it's a blob. It's quite possible that you can recreate the
+thing.
+
+ Linus
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] builtin-commit: Refresh cache after adding files.
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-11-09 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kristian Høgsberg; +Cc: gitster, git
In-Reply-To: <1194628412.30909.7.camel@hinata.boston.redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1128 bytes --]
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian H?gsberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 17:05 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> >
> > > This fixes the race in the last test int t3700.
> >
> > Well, it is not a race. My fault. I thought it was.
> >
> > What you basically did was to make sure that the index is up-to-date
> > after adding the files. You might even want to say that in the commit
> > message, and only then say that it fixes t3700, too.
>
> OK, I guess what I was wondering was why write_cache() doesn't write out
> an up-to-date index.
write_cache() only writes the index, it does not update it.
> Do we need a call to refresh_cache() when we update the user cache but
> commit an index created from read_tree+add_files? I.e. after the
> add_files_to_index() call on line 97? The shell script doesn't do this,
> it only runs update-index --refresh for the index that gets committed.
I think it would be sane to do so.
IIUC this basically means that "git add <file> && git commit" should do
the same to the cache as "git commit <file>".
Thanks,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Inconsistencies with git log
From: Jon Smirl @ 2007-11-09 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0711090747210.15101@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On 11/9/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> > Then why doesn't this work?
>
> Jon, lookie here:
>
> > jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b$ git log Documentation
> > all the log for Documentation....
> > jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b$ cd Documentation
> > jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b/Documentation$ git log Documentation
>
> Instead of the above sequence, do:
>
> jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b$ ls Documentation
> .. all the files in Documentation ..
> jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b$ cd Documentation
> jonsmirl@terra:~/mpc5200b/Documentation$ ls Documentation
>
> and now tell me, why doesn't that work? And can't you see how *stupid*
> your complaint is?
I never expected that to work it was just a response to the earlier
misstatement that the paths were relative to the project root. It
demonstrated that they were not.
The summary of this is that new users do not expect "git log" to give
them the whole log when the command is executed in a subdirectory.
This causes a training burden because of the unexpected behavior. They
try 'git log' and then I have to tell them to use "git log ."
>
> The rule is:
> - git log without arguments gives the whole, unabridged, and full
> history.
> - git log with arguments gives the *simplified* history for those
> arguments.
>
> But the arguments - if they exist - are always relative. You want things
> like filename completion to work. Making the pathname arguments absolute
> would be horrible. Think about it: it's just much more logical to always
> be able to say "I want the log for file xyz", and you don't want that to
> be absolute, since you shouldn't care where in the tree you are.
>
> And the fact that git log gives the whole history when you don't give any
> arguments at all IN NO WAY makes it any more sensible to give "absolute"
> pathnames. The history being "whole" has nothing to do with the pathnames
> being "absolute". The two are totally independent issues.
>
> Linus
>
--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git rebase --skip
From: Jeff King @ 2007-11-09 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin
Cc: Junio C Hamano, Björn Steinbrink, Andreas Ericsson,
Mike Hommey, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091056530.4362@racer.site>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:59:57AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Isn't having to say "--skip" instead of "--continue" enough? Some people
> might complain that it's too easy to get your fingers wired to type
> --skip.
They already have.
> Besides, after my patch to rebase on a detached HEAD, it is very easy to
> go back to the original state and try again.
But you are losing any work you did in resolving merges.
But I don't personally have this problem, so I will stop defending those
who claim to, and let them speak for themselves (hopefully with
patches!).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: linux-2.6 clone with CygWin git
From: Pascal Obry @ 2007-11-09 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Medve Emilian, git
In-Reply-To: <20071109150306.GA20531@old.davidb.org>
David Brown a écrit :
> It's because of the case-insensitive nature of the filesystem. The kernel
> contains both an xt_connmark.h and an xt_CONNMARK.h file, that are
> different. But only one exists on Windows, so git sees the first one it
> wrote as having been modified.
Probably not something for the list... but if you ask me this is just
bad practice anyway. Casing has no semantic, it is nonsense to have two
files with the same name with different casing!
Pascal.
--
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--| http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] builtin-commit: Refresh cache after adding files.
From: Kristian Høgsberg @ 2007-11-09 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: gitster, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091702190.4362@racer.site>
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 17:05 +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>
> > This fixes the race in the last test int t3700.
>
> Well, it is not a race. My fault. I thought it was.
>
> What you basically did was to make sure that the index is up-to-date after
> adding the files. You might even want to say that in the commit message,
> and only then say that it fixes t3700, too.
OK, I guess what I was wondering was why write_cache() doesn't write out
an up-to-date index. I'll send an updated patch. Do we need a call to
refresh_cache() when we update the user cache but commit an index
created from read_tree+add_files? I.e. after the add_files_to_index()
call on line 97? The shell script doesn't do this, it only runs
update-index --refresh for the index that gets committed.
Kristian
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] builtin-commit: Refresh cache after adding files.
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-11-09 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kristian Høgsberg; +Cc: gitster, git
In-Reply-To: <1194626427-2419-1-git-send-email-krh@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 368 bytes --]
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> This fixes the race in the last test int t3700.
Well, it is not a race. My fault. I thought it was.
What you basically did was to make sure that the index is up-to-date after
adding the files. You might even want to say that in the commit message,
and only then say that it fixes t3700, too.
Thanks,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2007-11-09 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yossi Leybovich; +Cc: Johannes Sixt, Andreas Ericsson, git, Yossi Leybovich
In-Reply-To: <4fe79b4b0711090831o30d2880dh3d9ec0bb0503f77a@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007 11:03 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 9, 2007 10:34 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> > > > Yossi Leybovich schrieb:
> > > > > [about corrupt loose object '4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200']
> > > >
> > > > You can try to create a clone (after you have fixed up the artificial
> > > > breakages that you made). If that goes well, then the bad object is
> > > > referenced only from reflogs.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > git clone ib ib-clone
> > > Initialized empty Git repository in /home/mellanox/work/symm/ib-clone/.git/
> > > 0 blocks
> >
> > Please try "file://ib" instead. Otherwise the clone will only hardlink
> > files to the original repository.
> >
> >
>
> And agian the corruption pop up again , so clone does not help
OK that means that the object is really part of your active history.
Linus just posted a nice summary of your only option left. If you
manage to recreate the damaged object then it would be nice of you if
you could provide us with both the bad and the good one for analysis.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: tracking remotes with Git
From: Michael Poole @ 2007-11-09 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ivan Shmakov; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <b1e3a35f0711090444g3c31e862g4ef4ef8139927840@mail.gmail.com>
Ivan Shmakov writes:
> I'm using Git (1.5.3.5 debian 1) for about a day or so, and I'm
> quite impressed that it allows tracking remote repositories
> (I've tried CVS and SVN) so easily with `git-cvsimport' and
> `git-svn'. However, I've ran into a couple of problems with
> them:
>
> * it looks like `git-cvsimport' uses its own CVS protocol
> implementation which doesn't support compression; I've tried
> to clone a repository of a project hosted in CVS since circa
> 1998 and it 20 MiB or so to obtain revisions until 2000 or so;
> any ways to minimize traffic?
What I do is arguably a horrible kludge, but it works well: rsync to
mirror the CVS repository to my local drive, and cvsimport from that.
When I was tweaking the import process (command-line options and the
author conversion file), having the local copy helped a lot.
Michael Poole
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add strchrnul()
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-11-09 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: René Scharfe, Junio C Hamano, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <473467C4.8020208@op5.se>
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> René Scharfe wrote:
>>> +#if !defined(__GLIBC__) && !__GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 1)
>>> +# define strchrnul(s, c) gitstrchrnul(s, c)
>>> +static inline char *gitstrchrnul(const char *s, int c)
>>> +{
>>> + while (*s && *s != c)
>>> + s++;
>>> +
>>> + return (char *)s;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>
>> This is good solution, although I'm not sure about the check itself.
>> What if somebody has libc which is not glibc, but it does have
>> strchrnul?
>
> They most likely fall into the minority that get to suffer from
> using code that's as fast as what's in there today, although
> a bit more readable. The glibc optimization is really only
> worthwhile for architectures where strchrnul()-like operations
> have microcode support, or when it's used on large strings.
If we end up using this solution, then adding test for strchrnul in the
configure (configure.ac and config.mak.in) is not needed...
> YMMV. I suppose rewriting it as
>
> #if defined(__GLIBC_PREREQ) && __GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 1)
#if !defined(HAVE_STRCHRNUL) && \
defined(__GLIBC_PREREQ) && __GLIBC_PREREQ(2, 1)
> # define HAVE_STRCHRNUL
> #endif
>
> #ifdef HAVE_STRCHRNUL
> ...
>
> would work too, and will provide an easier way out for other fellas
> wanting to say "Hey, my favourite solaris libc has this too!". OTOH,
> that rewrite can be done when the first such case appears.
...but if we end up using this version (be it HAVE_STRCHRNUL, or
NO_STRCHRNUL), then test for strchrnul in ./configure is I think
necessary.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] builtin-commit: Refresh cache after adding files.
From: Kristian Høgsberg @ 2007-11-09 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, Johannes Schindelin, Kristian Høgsberg
This fixes the race in the last test int t3700.
Signed-off-by: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@redhat.com>
---
I'm basically just copying what git-commit.sh does, but I'll admit to not
quite understanding why it's necessary. It does fix the race in t3700 though.
Applies on top of pu.
cheers,
Kristian
builtin-commit.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin-commit.c b/builtin-commit.c
index 7dc8977..19862df 100644
--- a/builtin-commit.c
+++ b/builtin-commit.c
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static char *prepare_index(const char **files, const char *prefix)
if (all || also) {
add_files_to_cache(verbose, also ? prefix : NULL, files);
+ refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) || close(fd))
die("unable to write new_index file");
return lock_file.filename;
@@ -110,6 +111,7 @@ static char *prepare_index(const char **files, const char *prefix)
fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(next_index_lock,
git_path("next-index-%d", getpid()), 1);
add_files_to_cache(verbose, prefix, files);
+ refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) || close(fd))
die("unable to write new_index file");
--
1.5.3.4.206.g58ba4
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: cogito remote branch
From: Jon Loeliger @ 2007-11-09 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: MichaelTiloDressel@t-online.de; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin, Git List
In-Reply-To: <1IqWRW-0QQ4LA0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de>
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:10, MichaelTiloDressel@t-online.de wrote:
> There are just some features
> which simplify things for me in cogito. E.g. in cogito in the simplest
> way you don't need to be aware of the index. While with git
> you have to remember to add the changes to the index explicitly
> to get them committed.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
"git commit -a ..." might be useful for you.
Other lingering cogito-isms you think are lacking in git?
jdl
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Yossi Leybovich @ 2007-11-09 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: Johannes Sixt, Andreas Ericsson, git, Yossi Leybovich
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0711091102370.21255@xanadu.home>
On Nov 9, 2007 11:03 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 2007 10:34 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> > > Yossi Leybovich schrieb:
> > > > [about corrupt loose object '4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200']
> > >
> > > You can try to create a clone (after you have fixed up the artificial
> > > breakages that you made). If that goes well, then the bad object is
> > > referenced only from reflogs.
> > >
> >
> >
> > git clone ib ib-clone
> > Initialized empty Git repository in /home/mellanox/work/symm/ib-clone/.git/
> > 0 blocks
>
> Please try "file://ib" instead. Otherwise the clone will only hardlink
> files to the original repository.
>
>
And agian the corruption pop up again , so clone does not help
[mellanox@mellanox-compile ib]$ git clone file://ib ib-clone
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/mellanox/work/symm/ib-clone/.git/
remote: Generating pack...
remote: Counting objects: 276
Done counting 3288 objects.
remote: Deltifying 3288 objects...
remote: error: remote: corrupt loose object
'4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200'remote:
remote: fatal: remote: object 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
cannot be readremote:
error: git-upload-pack: git-pack-objects died with error.
remote: aborting due to possible repository corruption on the remote side.
fatal: early EOF
fatal: index-pack died with error code 128
fetch-pack from 'file://ib' failed.
fatal: git-upload-pack: aborting due to possible repository corruption
on the remote side.
> Nicolas
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2007-11-09 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yossi Leybovich; +Cc: git, ae, Yossi Leybovich
In-Reply-To: <4fe79b4b0711090538wf483ce7j89c518962e89780e@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
>
> Did not help still the repository look for this object?
> Any one know how can I track this object and understand which file is it
So exactly *becuse* the SHA1 hash is cryptographically secure, the hash
itself doesn't actually tell you anything, in order to fix a corrupt
object you basically have to find the "original source" for it.
The easiest way to do that is almost always to have backups, and find the
same object somewhere else. Backups really are a good idea, and git makes
it pretty easy (if nothing else, just clone the repository somewhere else,
and make sure that you do *not* use a hard-linked clone, and preferably
not the same disk/machine).
But since you don't seem to have backups right now, the good news is that
especially with a single blob being corrupt, these things *are* somewhat
debuggable.
First off, move the corrupt object away, and *save* it. The most common
cause of corruption so far has been memory corruption, but even so, there
are people who would be interested in seeing the corruption - but it's
basically impossible to judge the corruption until we can also see the
original object, so right now the corrupt object is useless, but it's very
interesting for the future, in the hope that you can re-create a
non-corrupt version.
So:
> ib]$ mv .git/objects/4b/9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200 ../
This is the right thing to do, although it's usually best to save it under
it's full SHA1 name (you just dropped the "4b" from the result ;).
Let's see what that tells us:
> ib]$ git-fsck --full
> broken link from tree 2d9263c6d23595e7cb2a21e5ebbb53655278dff8
> to blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
> missing blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
Ok, I removed the "dangling commit" messages, because they are just
messages about the fact that you probably have rebased etc, so they're not
at all interesting. But what remains is still very useful. In particular,
we now know which tree points to it!
Now you can do
git ls-tree 2d9263c6d23595e7cb2a21e5ebbb53655278dff8
which will show something like
100644 blob 8d14531846b95bfa3564b58ccfb7913a034323b8 .gitignore
100644 blob ebf9bf84da0aab5ed944264a5db2a65fe3a3e883 .mailmap
100644 blob ca442d313d86dc67e0a2e5d584b465bd382cbf5c COPYING
100644 blob ee909f2cc49e54f0799a4739d24c4cb9151ae453 CREDITS
040000 tree 0f5f709c17ad89e72bdbbef6ea221c69807009f6 Documentation
100644 blob 1570d248ad9237e4fa6e4d079336b9da62d9ba32 Kbuild
100644 blob 1c7c229a092665b11cd46a25dbd40feeb31661d9 MAINTAINERS
...
and you should now have a line that looks like
10064 blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200 my-magic-file
in the output. This already tells you a *lot* it tells you what file the
corrupt blob came from!
Now, it doesn't tell you quite enough, though: it doesn't tell what
*version* of the file didn't get correctly written! You might be really
lucky, and it may be the version that you already have checked out in your
working tree, in which case fixing this problem is really simple, just do
git hash-object -w my-magic-file
again, and if it outputs the missing SHA1 (4b945..) you're now all done!
But that's the really lucky case, so let's assume that it was some older
version that was broken. How do you tell which version it was?
The easiest way to do it is to do
git log --raw --all --full-history -- subdirectory/my-magic-file
and that will show you the whole log for that file (please realize that
the tree you had may not be the top-level tree, so you need to figure out
which subdirectory it was in on your own), and because you're asking for
raw output, you'll now get something like
commit abc
Author:
Date:
..
:100644 100644 4b9458b... newsha... M somedirectory/my-magic-file
commit xyz
Author:
Date:
..
:100644 100644 oldsha... 4b9458b... M somedirectory/my-magic-file
and this actually tells you what the *previous* and *subsequent* versions
of that file were! So now you can look at those ("oldsha" and "newsha"
respectively), and hopefully you have done commits often, and can
re-create the missing my-magic-file version by looking at those older and
newer versions!
If you can do that, you can now recreate the missing object with
git hash-object -w <recreated-file>
and your repository is good again!
(Btw, you could have ignored the fsck, and started with doing a
git log --raw --all
and just looked for the sha of the missing object (4b9458b..) in that
whole thing. It's up to you - git does *have* a lot of information, it is
just missing one particular blob version.
Trying to recreate trees and especially commits is *much* harder. So you
were lucky that it's a blob. It's quite possible that you can recreate the
thing.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git rebase --skip
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2007-11-09 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin
Cc: Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Björn Steinbrink,
Andreas Ericsson, Mike Hommey, git
In-Reply-To: <20071109161945.GA26826@fieldses.org>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:19:46AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:59:57AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > > So I am fine with the original patch (unconditional reset --hard), but
> > > it would be nice to see the people who care submit concrete proposals
> > > for such a safety valve.
> >
> > Isn't having to say "--skip" instead of "--continue" enough? Some people
> > might complain that it's too easy to get your fingers wired to type
> > --skip.
> >
> > In that case, I might beg to differ for two reasons: --skip is definitely
> > not the default operation, so the fingers do not get any chance to do
> > that, and even if, they would get wired to --force --skip just as easily.
> >
> > Besides, after my patch to rebase on a detached HEAD, it is very easy to
> > go back to the original state and try again.
>
> We can't make --skip do an automatic reset --hard. I expect --skip to
> tell me if I haven't finished resolving conflicts. If it doesn't do
> that, I'll lose work. I can't be the only user with that expectation.
>
> (To be more specific: the work I lose is the work spent resolving how
> however many conflicts I've dealt with so far. It isn't always the case
> that I get to a certain point in a rebase and say "ah, yes, I know this
> is already applied, I can reset and skip it." More often I want to go
> through each conflict and decide individually. So I do that for a few,
> I run --continue or --skip when I think I'm done (but don't actually
> check first, 'cause I count on rebase to do that), then fix up anything
> remaining.)
(Eh, now that I think of it: what I actually usually do is run
--continue, git says there's one more conflict, I fix that up and run
--continue again, it tells me there's nothing to commit, I say huh?
Then eventually I remember I need to run --skip instead, cursing it for
not just figuring that out on its own.... So actually it may be that
the only time I run --skip is after --continue has told me I need to. I
can't *swear* that that's the case, so I'm still nervous about the idea
of --skip automatically resetting. Oh well. Take that one user's
experience for what it's worth.)
--b.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git rebase --skip
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2007-11-09 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin
Cc: Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Björn Steinbrink,
Andreas Ericsson, Mike Hommey, git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091056530.4362@racer.site>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 10:59:57AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > So I am fine with the original patch (unconditional reset --hard), but
> > it would be nice to see the people who care submit concrete proposals
> > for such a safety valve.
>
> Isn't having to say "--skip" instead of "--continue" enough? Some people
> might complain that it's too easy to get your fingers wired to type
> --skip.
>
> In that case, I might beg to differ for two reasons: --skip is definitely
> not the default operation, so the fingers do not get any chance to do
> that, and even if, they would get wired to --force --skip just as easily.
>
> Besides, after my patch to rebase on a detached HEAD, it is very easy to
> go back to the original state and try again.
We can't make --skip do an automatic reset --hard. I expect --skip to
tell me if I haven't finished resolving conflicts. If it doesn't do
that, I'll lose work. I can't be the only user with that expectation.
(To be more specific: the work I lose is the work spent resolving how
however many conflicts I've dealt with so far. It isn't always the case
that I get to a certain point in a rebase and say "ah, yes, I know this
is already applied, I can reset and skip it." More often I want to go
through each conflict and decide individually. So I do that for a few,
I run --continue or --skip when I think I'm done (but don't actually
check first, 'cause I count on rebase to do that), then fix up anything
remaining.)
--b.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2007-11-09 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Riesen; +Cc: Yossi Leybovich, git
In-Reply-To: <20071109081035.GA2794@steel.home>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
> Yossi Leybovich, Fri, Nov 09, 2007 00:59:47 +0100:
> > I wonder if someone can help in this error
> > I tried to do git-gc and got error on corrupted object.
> >
> > I do the following:
> >
> > $ git-gc
> > Generating pack...
> > Done counting 3037 objects.
> > Deltifying 3037 objects...
> > error: corrupt loose object '4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200'
>
> It is loose. Nothing uses it in this repository.
Very wrong. Loose object != unreachable object.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: cogito remote branch
From: MichaelTiloDressel @ 2007-11-09 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091417060.4362@racer.site>
>> Such a pity. We just got used to it.
>t's open source. You are free to use/maintain it.
True. But I'm not sure if it would be worth the effort.
I don't mind using git directly. There are just some features
which simplify things for me in cogito. E.g. in cogito in the simplest
way you don't need to be aware of the index. While with git
you have to remember to add the changes to the index explicitly
to get them committed.
Cheers,
Michael
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: fatal: serious inflate inconsistency
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2007-11-09 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bob; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <6C571F0D-442F-49B9-8CF8-D7DACB41FC1A@mac.com>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, bob wrote:
> Sorry, but I am not that familiar with git's internal workings,
> but here is a failure that I can consistently create. I am
> running MacOSX 10.4.10 with git compiled from source.
> Here is the problem output that I am receiving:
>
> remote: Generating pack...
> remote: Done counting 11402 objects.
> remote: Deltifying 11402 objects...
> remote: 100% (11402/11402) done
> Indexing 11402 objects...
> 100% (11402/11402) done
> Resolving 3356 deltas...
> fatal: serious inflate inconsistency
A similar problem (if not the same problem) has been reported on MacOSX
in the past. The conclusion was that either the gcc version or zlib
version on MacOSX was bad and updating them fixed it. I don't remember
the details now but you should be able to find them in the mail archive
(or maybe someone else remembers).
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2007-11-09 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yossi Leybovich; +Cc: Johannes Sixt, Andreas Ericsson, git, Yossi Leybovich
In-Reply-To: <4fe79b4b0711090753r52abd3e1ree64271c0fa229f6@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Yossi Leybovich wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:34 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> > Yossi Leybovich schrieb:
> > > [about corrupt loose object '4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200']
> >
> > You can try to create a clone (after you have fixed up the artificial
> > breakages that you made). If that goes well, then the bad object is
> > referenced only from reflogs.
> >
>
>
> git clone ib ib-clone
> Initialized empty Git repository in /home/mellanox/work/symm/ib-clone/.git/
> 0 blocks
Please try "file://ib" instead. Otherwise the clone will only hardlink
files to the original repository.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: corrupt object on git-gc
From: Johannes Sixt @ 2007-11-09 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yossi Leybovich; +Cc: Andreas Ericsson, git, Yossi Leybovich
In-Reply-To: <4fe79b4b0711090753r52abd3e1ree64271c0fa229f6@mail.gmail.com>
Yossi Leybovich schrieb:
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:34 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> Yossi Leybovich schrieb:
>>> [about corrupt loose object '4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200']
>> You can try to create a clone (after you have fixed up the artificial
>> breakages that you made). If that goes well, then the bad object is
>> referenced only from reflogs.
>>
>
>
> git clone ib ib-clone
> Initialized empty Git repository in /home/mellanox/work/symm/ib-clone/.git/
> 0 blocks
Make this:
git clone file:///home/mellanox/work/symm/ib ib-clone
otherwise you get a hard-linked identical copy, but you want to use the git
protocol to create the clone.
-- Hannes
^ permalink raw reply
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