* 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
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Mike Hommey @ 2008-10-30 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn O. Pearce; +Cc: Nicolas Pitre, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030145253.GK14786@spearce.org>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> 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.
Except he was talking about 'git checkout branch', not 'git checkout
origin/branch'. And I would be fine with 'git checkout branch' doing
what 'git checkout -b branch $remote/branch' does if $remote is unique
(i.e. there is no other 'branch' branch in any other remote) and the
'branch' branch doesn't already exist.
Mike
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Hommey; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce, Nicolas Pitre, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030145928.GA21707@glandium.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1165 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:59:28PM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 07:52:53AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> > +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.
>
> Except he was talking about 'git checkout branch', not 'git checkout
> origin/branch'. And I would be fine with 'git checkout branch' doing
> what 'git checkout -b branch $remote/branch' does if $remote is unique
> (i.e. there is no other 'branch' branch in any other remote) and the
> 'branch' branch doesn't already exist.
Seconded.
Having git-checkout $foo being a shorthand for git checkout -b $foo
origin/$foo when origin/$foo exists and $foo doesn't is definitely handy.
--
·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: Andreas Ericsson @ 2008-10-30 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030143918.GB14744@mit.edu>
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.
>
I like it, although I guess one would have to add a "--staged" flag to
git revert-file to be able to checkout files from index as well, or people
will wonder why that can't be done.
> * 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" does exactly the same thing as other commit-range handling
commands do, which is assume that the missing commit end-point is HEAD, so it
actually is consistent, although it doesn't quite look as if it is.
--
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 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <4909CABD.1040708@op5.se>
* Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> [2008-10-30 15:54:53 +0100]
> 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?
Not exactly. I often do some work on a branch which does not mandate
a topic branch and have to switch branches to fix a bug for example.
This would continue to push unterminated changes as well.
Typical use case, which happens (to me) quite frequently:
% git checkout master
[start new feature, estimated implementation time 15 minutes]
% git commit -m "Reorganize foobar in previous of xyzzy."
(note that I'm not sure that I will keep it, I'll know that later
when my next commit is ready, maybe in 10 minutes, no need for
a topic branch)
[mail from a customer, "I noticed some strange behaviour here" --
let's fix it]
% git checkout 2.0-beta1-release-candidate
[fix strange behaviour and add new test]
[test locally]
% git commit -m "Fix strange behaviour baz."
% git push
(so that it goes to the buildfarm for QA testing)
Argh, "master" has been pushed as well. Ok, I could have done
% git branch
(because I know I am on the right branch but do not necessarily
remember its full name all the time)
% git push origin 2.0-beta1-release-candidate
or I could have started a topic branch, but I often push 2 or 3
commits at a time instead, the first one being a refactoring of
existing code to ease the subsequent one.
>From what I have seen, people I am working with often have the
same workflow (do not systematically start a topic branch when
in active development mode)
> 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.
Happy birthday :)
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch: Add an example on how to remove empty commits
From: Deskin Miller @ 2008-10-30 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Petr Baudis, git, Sverre Rabbelier
In-Reply-To: <20081030132623.GC24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:26:23PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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.
I've thought this would be useful at times myself. One potential complication,
however, is that the history could come from a SVN repository via git-svn, in
which case it's possible that empty commits exist due to an incomplete mapping
of SVN's changes, e.g. SVN property changes will get their own revision, even
if the file content does not change.
Therefore, if one were to write a patch such as Pierre suggests, I'd strongly
suggest checking the commit message first for any git-svn-id: line, and either
refusing to work without some --force option from the user, or giving a strong
warning to the user that their git-svn setup may not work properly any more,
and clear instructions on how to recover those refs, or update the svn-related
metadata.
On further thought, automatically updating the svn metadata might be useful to
add as an option to filter-branch regardless; I'll think about that some
myself, any thoughts from others?
My $0.02,
Deskin Miller
^ 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