* [PATCH] asciidoc: add minor workaround to add an empty line after code blocks
From: Jonas Fonseca @ 2008-10-30 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Teemu Likonen; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <87od13ujm4.fsf@iki.fi>
Insert an empty <simpara> in manpages after code blocks to force and
empty line.
The problem can be seen on the manpage for the git tutorial, where an
example command and the following paragraph is printed with no empty
line between them:
First, note that you can get documentation for a command such as git
log --graph with:
$ man git-log
It is a good idea to introduce yourself to git [...]
Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <fonseca@diku.dk>
---
Documentation/asciidoc.conf | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote Thu, Oct 30, 2008:
> In case someone is interested there is still a minor flaw that an
> example command and the following paragraph is printed with no empty
> line between them. Like in the beginning of "git help tutorial", for
> example:
>
> First, note that you can get documentation for a command such as git
> log --graph with:
>
> $ man git-log
> It is a good idea to introduce yourself to git [...]
>
> It would be nicer if there was empty line after "$ man git-log". I can't
> remember if this is new issue or not. This applies only to man pages; in
> html pages there are nice boxes around example commands and equal
> spacing before and after them.
This is an old issue reported by Theodore Ts'o and fixed partially in
commit 63c97ce228f2d2697a8ed954a9592dfb5f286338 for the URL section of
the fetch/pull/push manpages. I have fixed this in tig using an
approach similar to the attached. Simple and clean, but only tested
with docbook-xsl version 1.72 so I have made it conditional.
diff --git a/Documentation/asciidoc.conf b/Documentation/asciidoc.conf
index 40d43b7..2da867d 100644
--- a/Documentation/asciidoc.conf
+++ b/Documentation/asciidoc.conf
@@ -40,6 +40,26 @@ endif::doctype-manpage[]
</literallayout>
{title#}</example>
endif::docbook-xsl-172[]
+
+ifdef::docbook-xsl-172[]
+ifdef::doctype-manpage[]
+# The following two small workarounds insert a simple paragraph after screen
+[listingblock]
+<example><title>{title}</title>
+<screen>
+|
+</screen><simpara></simpara>
+{title#}</example>
+
+[verseblock]
+<formalpara{id? id="{id}"}><title>{title}</title><para>
+{title%}<literallayout{id? id="{id}"}>
+{title#}<literallayout>
+|
+</literallayout><simpara></simpara>
+{title#}</para></formalpara>
+endif::doctype-manpage[]
+endif::docbook-xsl-172[]
endif::backend-docbook[]
ifdef::doctype-manpage[]
--
1.6.0.3.756.gb776d.dirty
--
Jonas Fonseca
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [JGIT RFC PATCH 3/3] Rate limit warnings spewed by RepositoryTestCase.recursiveDelete
From: Jonas Fonseca @ 2008-10-30 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robin Rosenberg; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce, git
In-Reply-To: <200810240110.21755.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com>
Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> wrote Fri, Oct 24, 2008:
> onsdagen den 22 oktober 2008 10.34.20 skrev Jonas Fonseca:
> > On Windows XP / NTFS / NetBeans 6.1 / Java 5 a lot of warnings are
> > printed. In most cases the path is in fact deleted and it seems to
> > just be a timing bug or something Windows or NTFS specific.
>
> The problem is actually flaws in the unit tests and in the supporting
> RepositoryTestCase. I think I'll fix that instead.
Thanks. Any progress on this? Can I help in any way?
--
Jonas Fonseca
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Stefan Karpinski @ 2008-10-30 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1225338485-11046-1-git-send-email-sam@vilain.net>
These proposed changes look great.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:
> + * 'git unstage' would do what 'git reset --' does now
Would it make sense to deprecate using "git reset --" for this then?
It's always seemed confusing to me to have such disparate
functionality in the reset command.
> + * 'git export' command that does what
> + 'git archive --format=tar --prefix=dir | tar x' does now
It would be nice if the "git export" command could "checkout" a
non-repo copy of a remote repo at a specific version. This would be as
simple as calling archive on the remote size and then unarchiving it
locally. But would of course take care of all the plumbing.
(Sorry for the resend, Sam.)
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 1/2] Add --verbose|-v to test-chmtime
From: Alex Riesen @ 2008-10-30 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Junio C Hamano, René Scharfe
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]
This allows us replace perl when getting the mtime of a file because
of time zone conversions, though at the moment only one platform which
does this has been identified: Cygwin when used with ActiveState Perl
(as usual).
The output format is:
<mtime1> TAB <filename1> <LF>
<mtime2> TAB <filename2> <LF>
...
which, if only mtime is needed can be parsed with cut(1):
test-chmtime -v +0 filename1 | cut -f 1
Also, the change adds a description of programs features, with examples.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <ariesen@harmanbecker.com>
---
test-chmtime.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Add-verbose-v-to-test-chmtime.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff; name=0001-Add-verbose-v-to-test-chmtime.patch, Size: 3995 bytes --]
From a59f17013cc54112d0bd11550b273baa6e312776 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:00:29 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add --verbose|-v to test-chmtime
This allows us replace perl when getting the mtime of a file because
of time zone conversions, though at the moment only one platform which
does this has been identified: Cygwin when used with ActiveState Perl
(as usual).
The output format is:
<mtime1> TAB <filename1> <LF>
<mtime2> TAB <filename2> <LF>
...
which, if only mtime is needed can be parsed with cut(1):
test-chmtime -v +0 filename1 | cut -f 1
Also, the change adds a description of programs features, with examples.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <ariesen@harmanbecker.com>
---
test-chmtime.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test-chmtime.c b/test-chmtime.c
index 90da448..d5358cb 100644
--- a/test-chmtime.c
+++ b/test-chmtime.c
@@ -1,39 +1,83 @@
+/*
+ * This program can either change modification time of the given
+ * file(s) or just print it. The program does not change atime nor
+ * ctime (their values are explicitely preserved).
+ *
+ * The mtime can be changed to an absolute value:
+ *
+ * test-chmtime =<seconds> file...
+ *
+ * Relative to the current time as returned by time(3):
+ *
+ * test-chmtime =+<seconds> (or =-<seconds>) file...
+ *
+ * Or relative to the current mtime of the file:
+ *
+ * test-chmtime <seconds> file...
+ * test-chmtime +<seconds> (or -<seconds>) file...
+ *
+ * Examples:
+ *
+ * To just print the mtime use --verbose and set the file mtime offset to 0:
+ *
+ * test-chmtime -v +0 file
+ *
+ * To set the mtime to current time:
+ *
+ * test-chmtime =+0 file
+ *
+ */
#include "git-compat-util.h"
#include <utime.h>
-static const char usage_str[] = "(+|=|=+|=-|-)<seconds> <file>...";
+static const char usage_str[] = "-v|--verbose (+|=|=+|=-|-)<seconds> <file>...";
-int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
+static int timespec_arg(const char *arg, long int *set_time, int *set_eq)
{
- int i;
- int set_eq;
- long int set_time;
char *test;
- const char *timespec;
-
- if (argc < 3)
- goto usage;
-
- timespec = argv[1];
- set_eq = (*timespec == '=') ? 1 : 0;
- if (set_eq) {
+ const char *timespec = arg;
+ *set_eq = (*timespec == '=') ? 1 : 0;
+ if (*set_eq) {
timespec++;
if (*timespec == '+') {
- set_eq = 2; /* relative "in the future" */
+ *set_eq = 2; /* relative "in the future" */
timespec++;
}
}
- set_time = strtol(timespec, &test, 10);
+ *set_time = strtol(timespec, &test, 10);
if (*test) {
- fprintf(stderr, "Not a base-10 integer: %s\n", argv[1] + 1);
- goto usage;
+ fprintf(stderr, "Not a base-10 integer: %s\n", arg + 1);
+ return 0;
}
- if ((set_eq && set_time < 0) || set_eq == 2) {
+ if ((*set_eq && *set_time < 0) || *set_eq == 2) {
time_t now = time(NULL);
- set_time += now;
+ *set_time += now;
}
+ return 1;
+}
+
+int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
+{
+ static int verbose;
- for (i = 2; i < argc; i++) {
+ int i = 1;
+ /* no mtime change by default */
+ int set_eq = 0;
+ long int set_time = 0;
+
+ if (argc < 3)
+ goto usage;
+
+ if (strcmp(argv[i], "--verbose") == 0 || strcmp(argv[i], "-v") == 0) {
+ verbose = 1;
+ ++i;
+ }
+ if (timespec_arg(argv[i], &set_time, &set_eq))
+ ++i;
+ else
+ goto usage;
+
+ for (; i < argc; i++) {
struct stat sb;
struct utimbuf utb;
@@ -46,7 +90,12 @@ int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
utb.actime = sb.st_atime;
utb.modtime = set_eq ? set_time : sb.st_mtime + set_time;
- if (utime(argv[i], &utb) < 0) {
+ if (verbose) {
+ uintmax_t mtime = utb.modtime < 0 ? 0: utb.modtime;
+ printf("%"PRIuMAX"\t%s\n", mtime, argv[i]);
+ }
+
+ if (utb.modtime != sb.st_mtime && utime(argv[i], &utb) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to modify time on %s: %s\n",
argv[i], strerror(errno));
return -1;
--
1.6.0.3.552.g4ff73
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 2/2] Use test-chmtime -v instead of perl in t5000 to get mtime of a file
From: Alex Riesen @ 2008-10-30 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Git Mailing List, Junio C Hamano, René Scharfe
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 235 bytes --]
The test was broken on admittedly broken combination of Windows, Cygwin,
and ActiveState Perl.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <ariesen@harmanbecker.com>
---
t/t5000-tar-tree.sh | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0002-Use-test-chmtime-v-instead-of-perl-in-t5000-to-get.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff; name=0002-Use-test-chmtime-v-instead-of-perl-in-t5000-to-get.patch, Size: 990 bytes --]
From 1013c1a2b51a183bd0f6059b2e1a1ed68b2173d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:20:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Use test-chmtime -v instead of perl in t5000 to get mtime of a file
The test was broken on admittedly broken combination of Windows, Cygwin,
and ActiveState Perl.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <ariesen@harmanbecker.com>
---
t/t5000-tar-tree.sh | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
index 0f27d73..c942c8b 100755
--- a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
+++ b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ test_expect_success \
'validate file modification time' \
'mkdir extract &&
"$TAR" xf b.tar -C extract a/a &&
- perl -e '\''print((stat("extract/a/a"))[9], "\n")'\'' >b.mtime &&
+ test-chmtime -v +0 extract/a/a |cut -f 1 >b.mtime &&
echo "1117231200" >expected.mtime &&
diff expected.mtime b.mtime'
--
1.6.0.3.552.g4ff73
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [StGit PATCH 1/3] stgit.el: Added undo command
From: Karl Hasselström @ 2008-10-30 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Kågedal; +Cc: catalin.marinas, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030095248.10290.81253.stgit@krank>
On 2008-10-30 10:52:48 +0100, David Kågedal wrote:
> Bound it to the two standard bindings C-/ and C-_.
> + (define-key stgit-mode-map [(control ?/)] 'stgit-undo)
> + (define-key stgit-mode-map "\C-_" 'stgit-undo))
Hmm, why do you spell control in two different ways?
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
www.treskal.com/kalle
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: request for pre-generated git.info pages
From: Mike Ralphson @ 2008-10-30 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: SLONIK.AZ, Git Mailing List; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jeff King, Miklos Vajna
In-Reply-To: <e2b179460810300206g79e06c63m2060092fa654b18b@mail.gmail.com>
2008/10/30 Mike Ralphson <mike.ralphson@gmail.com>:
> Unfortunately I don't have a working asciidoc etc toolchain either
> (though I will take a look at getting it working on my central git box
> which is Linux based). As I'm not an emacs or Info user I probably
> wouldn't know if they were building correctly anyway.
The only machine at my disposal with a working Python installation
(and I'm afraid I don't feel inclined to install it anywhere else,
Python on AIX is painful, and obviously if I was a Python nut, I'd be
running mercurial anyway, right?) is my desktop cygwin installation.
At least there obtaining asciidoc was no problem, but I think I'm
stuck in some docbook2x dependency hell with lots of twisty turny
prerequisities, all alike.
Now deep in a dark cave with a sign saying "Can't locate
XML/Handler/SGMLSpl.pm in @INC", which is where my adventure ends.
Score 0/100.
So a volunteer would still be appreciated.
Mike
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Bill Lear @ 2008-10-30 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1225343538.10803.9.camel@maia.lan>
On Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 22:12:18 (-0700) Sam Vilain writes:
>On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:23 -0600, Bill Lear wrote:
>> We use git in a way that makes it desirable for us to only push/pull
>> to the same remote branch. So, if I'm in branch X, I want 'git push'
>> to push to origin/X, and 'git pull' to fetch into origin/X and then
>> merge into X from origin/X.
>>
>> In other words, we want git push/pull to behave in branches other than
>> master the same way it does when in master.
>>
>> I have discovered the '--track' option when creating a local branch,
>> and this appears to me to be the thing that gives us the desired
>> behavior.
>
>As things currently stand this is not achievable behaviour. The
>behaviour of 'git push' is to push all matching refs. If you are lucky
>this is what you intended, but it also pushes any changes to *other*
>branches that you have made.
>
>I have tabled a change proposal to make it work as you suggest in a
>separate thread.
Ok, now I'm confused. The ONLY thing I want to prevent is the
"crossing of streams" issue. If I am on branch X and issue 'git
push', I want X, and ONLY X, to be pushed to the remote repository's X
branch --- I don't care if other branches are pushed to their
respective remote branches, as long as they don't get merged to X.
So, are you saying that Santi was incorrect, and that in fact
the push will result in a merge of the branches?
Bill
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Bill Lear @ 2008-10-30 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <18697.41702.241183.408377@lisa.zopyra.com>
On Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 06:04:54 (-0600) Bill Lear writes:
>On Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 22:12:18 (-0700) Sam Vilain writes:
>>On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:23 -0600, Bill Lear wrote:
>>> We use git in a way that makes it desirable for us to only push/pull
>>> to the same remote branch. So, if I'm in branch X, I want 'git push'
>>> to push to origin/X, and 'git pull' to fetch into origin/X and then
>>> merge into X from origin/X.
>>>
>>> In other words, we want git push/pull to behave in branches other than
>>> master the same way it does when in master.
>>>
>>> I have discovered the '--track' option when creating a local branch,
>>> and this appears to me to be the thing that gives us the desired
>>> behavior.
>>
>>As things currently stand this is not achievable behaviour. The
>>behaviour of 'git push' is to push all matching refs. If you are lucky
>>this is what you intended, but it also pushes any changes to *other*
>>branches that you have made.
>>
>>I have tabled a change proposal to make it work as you suggest in a
>>separate thread.
>
>Ok, now I'm confused. The ONLY thing I want to prevent is the
>"crossing of streams" issue. If I am on branch X and issue 'git
>push', I want X, and ONLY X, to be pushed to the remote repository's X
>branch --- I don't care if other branches are pushed to their
>respective remote branches, as long as they don't get merged to X.
Oh, and also the same thing for 'git pull' --- sorry to leave that out.
Bill
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Andreas Ericsson @ 2008-10-30 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Lear; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <18697.42140.459170.891195@lisa.zopyra.com>
Bill Lear wrote:
> On Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 06:04:54 (-0600) Bill Lear writes:
>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 22:12:18 (-0700) Sam Vilain writes:
>>> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:23 -0600, Bill Lear wrote:
>>>> We use git in a way that makes it desirable for us to only push/pull
>>>> to the same remote branch. So, if I'm in branch X, I want 'git push'
>>>> to push to origin/X, and 'git pull' to fetch into origin/X and then
>>>> merge into X from origin/X.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, we want git push/pull to behave in branches other than
>>>> master the same way it does when in master.
>>>>
>>>> I have discovered the '--track' option when creating a local branch,
>>>> and this appears to me to be the thing that gives us the desired
>>>> behavior.
>>> As things currently stand this is not achievable behaviour. The
>>> behaviour of 'git push' is to push all matching refs. If you are lucky
>>> this is what you intended, but it also pushes any changes to *other*
>>> branches that you have made.
>>>
>>> I have tabled a change proposal to make it work as you suggest in a
>>> separate thread.
>> Ok, now I'm confused. The ONLY thing I want to prevent is the
>> "crossing of streams" issue. If I am on branch X and issue 'git
>> push', I want X, and ONLY X, to be pushed to the remote repository's X
>> branch --- I don't care if other branches are pushed to their
>> respective remote branches, as long as they don't get merged to X.
>
> Oh, and also the same thing for 'git pull' --- sorry to leave that out.
>
This particular bikeshed was painted a long time ago, with the consensus
going in favour of "git push" pushing all *matching* refspecs.
To convince people, I think you need to either come up with arguments
nullifying all the arguments *for* pushing all matching refspecs along
with patches to make the default configurable, with your preferred way
as a default, and a nifty enough shorthand for pushing/fetching all
matching refspecs. For preference, they should be at least 3 separate
patches.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Santi Béjar @ 2008-10-30 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Lear; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <18697.41702.241183.408377@lisa.zopyra.com>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 22:12:18 (-0700) Sam Vilain writes:
>>On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 09:23 -0600, Bill Lear wrote:
>>> We use git in a way that makes it desirable for us to only push/pull
>>> to the same remote branch. So, if I'm in branch X, I want 'git push'
>>> to push to origin/X, and 'git pull' to fetch into origin/X and then
>>> merge into X from origin/X.
>>>
>>> In other words, we want git push/pull to behave in branches other than
>>> master the same way it does when in master.
>>>
>>> I have discovered the '--track' option when creating a local branch,
>>> and this appears to me to be the thing that gives us the desired
>>> behavior.
>>
>>As things currently stand this is not achievable behaviour. The
>>behaviour of 'git push' is to push all matching refs. If you are lucky
>>this is what you intended, but it also pushes any changes to *other*
>>branches that you have made.
>>
>>I have tabled a change proposal to make it work as you suggest in a
>>separate thread.
>
> Ok, now I'm confused. The ONLY thing I want to prevent is the
> "crossing of streams" issue. If I am on branch X and issue 'git
> push', I want X, and ONLY X, to be pushed to the remote repository's X
> branch --- I don't care if other branches are pushed to their
> respective remote branches, as long as they don't get merged to X.
No branches will get merged in a push.
>
> So, are you saying that Santi was incorrect, and that in fact
> the push will result in a merge of the branches?
Sorry, I was (partly) incorrect because I was only talking about pull.
For push you can add a "push = HEAD" config to the remote and then the
"git push" will only push the current branch (with the corresponding
matching remote branch).
$ git config remote.origin.push HEAD
Strictly speaking when you push (with the default config or with the
above trick) you push matching branches (it doesn't matter what is the
branch.<remote>.merge). Currently there is no way to say "push to the
corresponding tracking branch"
Still I think this will work as you want (as long as your local and
remote branch have the same name):
$ git clone $url
$ cd path
$ git config remote.origin.push HEAD
$ git checkout -b branch origin/branch
$ work, commit,...
$ git push
HTH,
Santi
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] asciidoc: add minor workaround to add an empty line after code blocks
From: Teemu Likonen @ 2008-10-30 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonas Fonseca; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030104503.GA17131@diku.dk>
Jonas Fonseca (2008-10-30 11:45 +0100) wrote:
> Insert an empty <simpara> in manpages after code blocks to force and
> empty line.
> This is an old issue reported by Theodore Ts'o and fixed partially in
> commit 63c97ce228f2d2697a8ed954a9592dfb5f286338 for the URL section
> of the fetch/pull/push manpages. I have fixed this in tig using an
> approach similar to the attached. Simple and clean, but only tested
> with docbook-xsl version 1.72 so I have made it conditional.
Thanks. Your patch seems to work and code blocks look much nicer now. I
tested command-line "man" as well as Emacs' "M-x man" and "M-x woman".
I'm using docbook-xsl Debian package version 1.73.2.dfsg.1-4.
Another kind of formatting issue exists with some other example
commands, like in "git rebase" manpage, for example. Not that I care
that much, but here's an example. The asciidoc source (git-rebase.txt)
contains:
then the command
git rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA
would result in the removal of commits F and G:
In final manpage output it looks like this:
then the command
git rebase --onto topicA~5 topicA~3 topicA
would result in the removal of commits F and G:
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain; +Cc: git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <1225338485-11046-1-git-send-email-sam@vilain.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3292 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:48:05AM +0000, Sam Vilain wrote:
> +Add/rm/reset/checkout/revert
> +----------------------------
> +
> +Many find these confusing.
> +
> + * 'git stage' would do what 'git add' does now.
-> git stage -i/-p shall do what git add -i/-p does.
> +
> + * 'git unstage' would do what 'git reset --' does now
-> likely we need a git unstage -i/-p to interactively unstage some
bits.
* 'git track' would do what git add -N does now.
* 'git untrack' would do what 'git rm --cached' does now.
> + * 'git undo' would do what 'git checkout HEAD --' does now
I'm not really a fan of this one. Undo is too unspecific (I know at
least 2 people using that for git reset --hard HEAD~1 and 1 other for an
alias to git reset --hard HEAD@{1}).
I have no constructive proposal to replace it though, but I believe git
undo would cause lots of harm. Would it be for another command, it
wouldn't be a problem, but git undo *LOSES* information by design (the
local changes on a file), and it would override aliases that people
could have done on it. Choosing it has consequences.
> +Working with patches
> +--------------------
> +
> + * 'git send-email' should prompt for all SMTP-related information
> + about sending e-mail when it is running with no configuration.
> + Because these days /usr/lib/sendmail is rarely configured
> + correctly.
And when the user answer them, it should set them (a bit like zsh does
when it's run from the first time e.g.)
> +
> + * other git send-email functionality which has bitten people -
> + particularly building the recipient list - should prompt for
> + confirmation until configured to be automatic.
> +
* git-send-email should be either more interactive, or less: either
just use the damn configuration, or propose a mode where it spawns
an editor for each patch so that you can add further comments.
* git-send-email should be able to format-patches by himself (IOW
accept most of format-patch arguments and deal with the patch list
by himself, which is usable if the previous point is implemented).
> + * 'git am -3' the default; with global option to make it not the
> + default for those that prefer the speed of -2
> +
> +
> +Submodules
> +----------
> +
> + * submodules should be able to refer to symbolic ref names, svn
> + style - in the .gitmodules file. The actual commit used is still
> + recorded in the index.
> +
> + * when switching branches, if the checked out revision of a submodule
> + changes, then it should be switched as well
> +
> + * 'git submodule update' should be able to be triggered when
> + switching branches (but not be the default behaviour)
Actually on this one, I'd say that a submodule is either non initialized
(in which case we don't care) or it is. If it is, switching branches
should probably trigger a submodule update if the switch isn't possible
(because the dereferenced sha1 doesn't exists). Or alternatively it
should make the whole branch switch fail.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch: Add an example on how to remove empty commits
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Petr Baudis; +Cc: git, Sverre Rabbelier
In-Reply-To: <1225326833-15210-1-git-send-email-pasky@suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1675 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:33:53AM +0000, Petr Baudis wrote:
> From: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
> ---
> Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
> index fed6de6..2565244 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
> @@ -246,6 +246,21 @@ git filter-branch --commit-filter '
> fi' HEAD
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +To remove commits that are empty (do not introduce any change):
> +
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +git rev-list HEAD | while read c; do [ -n "$(git diff-tree --root $c)" ] || echo $c; done > revs
> +
> +git filter-branch --commit-filter '
> + if grep -q "$GIT_COMMIT" '"$(pwd)/"revs';
> + then
> + skip_commit "$@";
> + else
> + git commit-tree "$@";
> + fi' HEAD
> +
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not add an option to filter-branch that removes a commit if it's
empty ? It's quite useful, it helps the user concentrating on just
keeping what matches *his* criteriums, and not caring about the minor
details of cleansing the result.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2008-10-30 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <4909A7C4.30507@op5.se>
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
Andreas> This particular bikeshed was painted a long time ago, with
Andreas> the consensus going in favour of "git push" pushing all
Andreas> *matching* refspecs.
I still don't understand why this is useful, especially when git push
already has a "--all" option.
I know that I've never had the intent to push all the refs without
thinking about it first. Most of the time, I intend to push only
the current branch I am in.
The current behaviour made me remove the branches I was not actively
on locally, because I would get errors from "git push" all the time
saying that I was not up-to-date in those branches.
Note that the "git pull" issue is completely different, as it merges
or fast forwards the current branch only.
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Andreas Ericsson @ 2008-10-30 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Samuel Tardieu; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <2008-10-30-14-52-52+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>
> Andreas> This particular bikeshed was painted a long time ago, with
> Andreas> the consensus going in favour of "git push" pushing all
> Andreas> *matching* refspecs.
>
> I still don't understand why this is useful, especially when git push
> already has a "--all" option.
>
--all pushes all refs, even the non-matching ones, which is very
rarely desirable and only accidentally sometimes the same as "push all
matching refs".
> I know that I've never had the intent to push all the refs without
> thinking about it first. Most of the time, I intend to push only
> the current branch I am in.
>
Then say so. There's a very simple command syntax for it:
"git push <remote> <current-branch>"
> The current behaviour made me remove the branches I was not actively
> on locally, because I would get errors from "git push" all the time
> saying that I was not up-to-date in those branches.
>
That's an orthogonal issue, and one that really could be fixed without
anyone complaining. Send a patch that checks if foo is a strict subset
of <remote>/foo before trying to send it, and abort if it is so. This
means that we'll try to push "foo" if upstream rewrote their "foo", but
perhaps that's just as well.
Note though that the patch mustn't try to apply any smarts if a ref is
given explicitly.
> Note that the "git pull" issue is completely different, as it merges
> or fast forwards the current branch only.
>
"git pull" is actually only vaguely connected with "git push". The
opposite of "push" is "fetch" in git lingo.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2008-10-30 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <4909BF58.9010500@op5.se>
* Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> [2008-10-30 15:06:16 +0100]
> --all pushes all refs, even the non-matching ones, which is very
> rarely desirable and only accidentally sometimes the same as "push all
> matching refs".
>
>> I know that I've never had the intent to push all the refs without
>> thinking about it first. Most of the time, I intend to push only
>> the current branch I am in.
>
> Then say so. There's a very simple command syntax for it:
> "git push <remote> <current-branch>"
I update the branches I'm working in maybe 20 times a day, sometimes
more. When I make a change and all the tests pass, I prefer to call
git push
rather than
git push origin 2.0-beta1
(and "2.0-beta1" is a short name here, some branches have much longer
names)
I think it would be better to have :
git push <= push the current branch
git push --all <= push all matching refs
git push --all --create <= push all matching refs, create if needed
The latest command is probably used so rarely (compared to the others)
that it wouldn't be a problem to make it longer. Of course, if a
refspec is given explicitely, it should be honored and remote refs
created if needed.
I am curious of what other people workflows are. Do you often push
multiple branches at the same time? More often than one at a time?
Many times a day?
> "git pull" is actually only vaguely connected with "git push". The
> opposite of "push" is "fetch" in git lingo.
I know, but "git fetch" only updates remote tracking branches, and I
think that in the majority of the cases you want to advance all the
remote references. And even if you screw up, the problem will only
happen in your local copy, not in an upstream or shared repository.
I assume that most people "push" to public repositories and not
many of them "pull" into public repositories directly.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2008-10-30 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1225338485-11046-1-git-send-email-sam@vilain.net>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Sam Vilain wrote:
> From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
>
> For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be
> cohesively planned. Add a planning document for this next set of
> changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
[...]
> + * 'git checkout branch' would, if there is a remote branch called
> + 'branch' on exactly one remote, do what
> + 'git checkout -b branch thatremote/branch' does now. If it is
> + ambiguous, it would be an error, forcing the explicit notation.
I can't do otherwise but disagree with this. Currently, when a remote
branch is checked out, the commit corresponding to that remote branch is
put on a detached head which is IMHO completely sane and coherent. It
even tells you how to create a local branch from there if that's what
you wanted to do. So if it is still too confusing at that point then
more explanations are needed and not the removal of a perfectly fine
feature. Please don't change that behavior.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Theodore Tso @ 2008-10-30 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Vilain; +Cc: git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <1225338485-11046-1-git-send-email-sam@vilain.net>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:48:05PM -0700, Sam Vilain wrote:
> From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
>
> For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be
> cohesively planned. Add a planning document for this next set of
> changes.
Here are my favorites:
* Add the command "git revert-file <files>" which is syntactic sugar for:
git checkout HEAD -- <files>
Rationale: Many other SCM's have a way of undoing local edits to a
file very simply, i.e."hg revert <file>" or "svn revert <file>", and
for many developers's workflow, it's useful to be able to undo local
edits to a single file, but not to everything else in the working
directory. And "git checkout HEAD -- <file>" is rather cumbersome
to type, and many beginning users don't find it intuitive to look in
the "git-checkout" man page for instructions on how to revert a
local file.
* Change the argument handling for "git format-patch" so it is
consistent with everything else which takes a set of commits. Yes,
it means that where people have gotten used to typing "git
format-patch origin", they'll have to type instead: "git
format-patch origin..", but's much more consistent. We've done the
best we can by documenting the existing behavior, but if'we re going
to make major, potentially incompatible, CLI changes, this is
something to at least consider. Maybe with a config file for people
who really don't want to retrain their fingers to type the two extra
periods?
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Samuel Tardieu; +Cc: Andreas Ericsson, Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <2008-10-30-15-23-16+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:23:16PM +0000, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> I think it would be better to have :
>
> git push <= push the current branch
> git push --all <= push all matching refs
> git push --all --create <= push all matching refs, create if needed
>
> The latest command is probably used so rarely (compared to the others)
> that it wouldn't be a problem to make it longer. Of course, if a
> refspec is given explicitely, it should be honored and remote refs
> created if needed.
Fwiw I'm in favor of that, and it was what I advocated at the time.
Though I think than as soon as you add an explicit remote name, like:
git push origin, pushing all matched references makes sense. Which is
also what I advocated at the time.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030143918.GB14744@mit.edu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2159 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:39:18PM +0000, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:48:05PM -0700, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
> >
> > For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be
> > cohesively planned. Add a planning document for this next set of
> > changes.
>
> Here are my favorites:
>
> * Add the command "git revert-file <files>" which is syntactic sugar for:
>
> git checkout HEAD -- <files>
>
> Rationale: Many other SCM's have a way of undoing local edits to a
> file very simply, i.e."hg revert <file>" or "svn revert <file>", and
> for many developers's workflow, it's useful to be able to undo local
> edits to a single file, but not to everything else in the working
> directory. And "git checkout HEAD -- <file>" is rather cumbersome
> to type, and many beginning users don't find it intuitive to look in
> the "git-checkout" man page for instructions on how to revert a
> local file.
This is what is currently proposed for undo, but yeah, revert-file or
maybe rather revert-changes may be suitable.
> * Change the argument handling for "git format-patch" so it is
> consistent with everything else which takes a set of commits. Yes,
> it means that where people have gotten used to typing "git
> format-patch origin", they'll have to type instead: "git
> format-patch origin..", but's much more consistent. We've done the
> best we can by documenting the existing behavior, but if'we re going
> to make major, potentially incompatible, CLI changes, this is
> something to at least consider. Maybe with a config file for people
> who really don't want to retrain their fingers to type the two extra
> periods?
git format-patch origin/next.. works already. I'm used to the asymetric
git format-patch origin/next syntax, and I would be sorry if it
disappeared though, and I see no really good reason to get rid of it.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2008-10-30 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810301024300.13034@xanadu.home>
Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > From: Sam Vilain <samv@vilain.net>
> >
> > For cross-command CLI changes to be effective, they need to be
> > cohesively planned. Add a planning document for this next set of
> > changes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
> [...]
>
> > + * 'git checkout branch' would, if there is a remote branch called
> > + 'branch' on exactly one remote, do what
> > + 'git checkout -b branch thatremote/branch' does now. If it is
> > + ambiguous, it would be an error, forcing the explicit notation.
>
> I can't do otherwise but disagree with this. Currently, when a remote
> branch is checked out, the commit corresponding to that remote branch is
> put on a detached head which is IMHO completely sane and coherent. It
> even tells you how to create a local branch from there if that's what
> you wanted to do. So if it is still too confusing at that point then
> more explanations are needed and not the removal of a perfectly fine
> feature. Please don't change that behavior.
+1 to Nico's NAK.
Although I was at the GitTogether I don't remember this change to
checkout being discussed. I must have been asleep reading email
or something. I am _NOT_ in favor of this change; I think the
current behavior of "git checkout origin/master" is correct and as
sane as we can make it.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Andreas Ericsson @ 2008-10-30 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Samuel Tardieu; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <2008-10-30-15-23-16+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> * Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> [2008-10-30 15:06:16 +0100]
>
>> --all pushes all refs, even the non-matching ones, which is very
>> rarely desirable and only accidentally sometimes the same as "push all
>> matching refs".
>>
>>> I know that I've never had the intent to push all the refs without
>>> thinking about it first. Most of the time, I intend to push only
>>> the current branch I am in.
>> Then say so. There's a very simple command syntax for it:
>> "git push <remote> <current-branch>"
>
> I update the branches I'm working in maybe 20 times a day, sometimes
> more. When I make a change and all the tests pass, I prefer to call
>
> git push
>
> rather than
>
> git push origin 2.0-beta1
>
So why don't you? Unless you also make lots of changes on other branches,
the two commands will result in exactly the same thing.
> (and "2.0-beta1" is a short name here, some branches have much longer
> names)
>
> I think it would be better to have :
>
> git push <= push the current branch
> git push --all <= push all matching refs
> git push --all --create <= push all matching refs, create if needed
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't my suggestion of not trying to
push (even matching) branches that haven't been updated since we last
fetched from the remote do exactly the same thing for your particular
use-case, but without syntax change and all the annoying minor parts
that it entails?
> The latest command is probably used so rarely (compared to the others)
> that it wouldn't be a problem to make it longer. Of course, if a
> refspec is given explicitely, it should be honored and remote refs
> created if needed.
>
> I am curious of what other people workflows are. Do you often push
> multiple branches at the same time?
Quite often, yes.
> More often than one at a time?
No.
> Many times a day?
>
Define "many". Perhaps as often as 2-3 times per day. Not very often,
but frequent enough that I definitely want some short sweet way of
doing it. OTOH, I also find the "rejected" messages annoying, and I
definitely feel one could do something about them. However, it's my
birthday today and I plan on being far too drunk/hungover the entire
weekend for me to take any actions in that direction.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Samuel Tardieu @ 2008-10-30 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Andreas Ericsson, Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030144107.GE24098@artemis.corp>
* Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> [2008-10-30 15:41:07 +0100]
| On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:23:16PM +0000, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
| > I think it would be better to have :
| >
| > git push <= push the current branch
| > git push --all <= push all matching refs
| > git push --all --create <= push all matching refs, create if needed
| >
| > The latest command is probably used so rarely (compared to the others)
| > that it wouldn't be a problem to make it longer. Of course, if a
| > refspec is given explicitely, it should be honored and remote refs
| > created if needed.
|
| Fwiw I'm in favor of that, and it was what I advocated at the time.
|
| Though I think than as soon as you add an explicit remote name, like:
| git push origin, pushing all matched references makes sense. Which is
| also what I advocated at the time.
Indeed, it makes sense. We could then have:
git push <= push the current branch on default remote
(which is, at least in my case, the most
frequent use I want to make of "git push",
on all the projects [work or volunteer]
I work on)
git push remote <= push all matching refs on named remote
git push --all [remote] <= push and create all refs on remote (or default)
Sam
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [StGit PATCH 1/3] stgit.el: Added undo command
From: David Kågedal @ 2008-10-30 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karl Hasselström; +Cc: git, catalin marinas
In-Reply-To: <20081030115716.GA19360@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> writes:
> On 2008-10-30 10:52:48 +0100, David Kågedal wrote:
>
>> Bound it to the two standard bindings C-/ and C-_.
>
>> + (define-key stgit-mode-map [(control ?/)] 'stgit-undo)
>> + (define-key stgit-mode-map "\C-_" 'stgit-undo))
>
> Hmm, why do you spell control in two different ways?
I usually use the "\C-x" syntax, but for some reason that didn't work
with "\C-/", so I used another syntax. I'm not sure how compatible
that is with XEmacs, though.
--
David Kågedal
^ 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