* 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
* Re: [PATCH] git-filter-branch: Add an example on how to remove empty commits
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Deskin Miller; +Cc: Petr Baudis, git, Sverre Rabbelier
In-Reply-To: <20081030150617.GA14098@euler>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:06:18PM +0000, Deskin Miller wrote:
> 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.
Well, if you want to migrate your git-svn repository to something else,
it doesn't makes sense to add this limitation. I'd rather see this
"problem" advertized in the manual page, rather than a limitation added.
Note that using git filter-branch on a git-svn repository and still
expecting it to work with git-svn is IMHO wrong in so many ways that we
should not really try that hard to prevent the user doing something
stupid anyways.
--
·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: Encoding problems using git-svn
From: James North @ 2008-10-30 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20081030074114.GA26926@yp-box.dyndns.org>
Hi Eric,
Don't worry about not seeing the patch and thanks for the answer :)
Your patch works great.
Messages appear without problems on "svn log" and "git log", I haven't
found any gotcha that I know of.
The weird thing is that this problem was not found by anyone before, I
guessed there should be some people with a setup similar to mine.
Thanks again.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I saw your other patch too late, I had already started working on my
> patch earlier today but got distracted by other things (being at
> GitTogether :) and lacked a stable Internet connection afterwards.
>
> Anyways, here's my version, it handles the case where the user specifies
> the --edit option to interactively edit the commit message before
> committing; and also reencodes the messages when fetching from SVN.
>
> Can you let me know if it works for you?
>
> Note: I'll be in transit tomorrow and may not have time to follow
> up on this until Saturday.
>
> From 84f003e0c39414ebf27a98de167643e95bed6abb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:49:26 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] git-svn: respect i18n.commitencoding config
>
> SVN itself always stores log messages in the repository as
> UTF-8. git always stores/retrieves everything as raw binary
> data with no transformations whatsoever.
>
> To interact with SVN, we need to encode log messages as UTF-8
> before sending them to SVN, as SVN cannot do it for us. When
> retrieving log messages from SVN, we also need to (attempt to)
> reencode the UTF-8 log message back to the user-specified commit
> encoding.
>
> Note, handling i18n.logoutputencoding for "git svn log" also
> needs to be done in a future change.
>
> Also, this change only deals with the encoding of commit
> messages and nothing else (path names, blob content, ...).
>
> In-Reply-To: <8b168cfb0810282014r789ac01dnec51824de1078f0@mail.gmail.com>
> James North <tocapicha@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using git-svn on a system with ISO-8859-1 encoding. The problem is
>> when I try to use "git svn dcommit" to send changes to a remote svn
>> (also ISO-8859-1).
>>
>> Seems like git-svn is sending commit messages with utf-8 (just a
>> guessing...) and they look bad on the remote svn log. E.g. "Ca?\241a
>> de cami?\243n"
>>
>> I have tried using i18n.commitencoding=ISO-8859-1 as suggested by the
>> warning when doing "git svn dcommit" but messages still are sent with
>> wrong encoding.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
> ---
> git-svn.perl | 24 ++++++++-
> t/t9129-git-svn-i18n-commitencoding.sh | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100755 t/t9129-git-svn-i18n-commitencoding.sh
>
> diff --git a/git-svn.perl b/git-svn.perl
> index f90ddac..f24559c 100755
> --- a/git-svn.perl
> +++ b/git-svn.perl
> @@ -1136,9 +1136,19 @@ sub get_commit_entry {
> system($editor, $commit_editmsg);
> }
> rename $commit_editmsg, $commit_msg or croak $!;
> - open $log_fh, '<', $commit_msg or croak $!;
> - { local $/; chomp($log_entry{log} = <$log_fh>); }
> - close $log_fh or croak $!;
> + {
> + # SVN requires messages to be UTF-8 when entering the repo
> + local $/;
> + open $log_fh, '<', $commit_msg or croak $!;
> + binmode $log_fh;
> + chomp($log_entry{log} = <$log_fh>);
> +
> + if (my $enc = Git::config('i18n.commitencoding')) {
> + require Encode;
> + Encode::from_to($log_entry{log}, $enc, 'UTF-8');
> + }
> + close $log_fh or croak $!;
> + }
> unlink $commit_msg;
> \%log_entry;
> }
> @@ -2273,6 +2283,14 @@ sub do_git_commit {
> }
> defined(my $pid = open3(my $msg_fh, my $out_fh, '>&STDERR', @exec))
> or croak $!;
> + binmode $msg_fh;
> +
> + # we always get UTF-8 from SVN, but we may want our commits in
> + # a different encoding.
> + if (my $enc = Git::config('i18n.commitencoding')) {
> + require Encode;
> + Encode::from_to($log_entry->{log}, 'UTF-8', $enc);
> + }
> print $msg_fh $log_entry->{log} or croak $!;
> restore_commit_header_env($old_env);
> unless ($self->no_metadata) {
> diff --git a/t/t9129-git-svn-i18n-commitencoding.sh b/t/t9129-git-svn-i18n-commitencoding.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..2848e46
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t9129-git-svn-i18n-commitencoding.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +#
> +# Copyright (c) 2008 Eric Wong
> +
> +test_description='git svn honors i18n.commitEncoding in config'
> +
> +. ./lib-git-svn.sh
> +
> +compare_git_head_with () {
> + nr=`wc -l < "$1"`
> + a=7
> + b=$(($a + $nr - 1))
> + git cat-file commit HEAD | sed -ne "$a,${b}p" >current &&
> + test_cmp current "$1"
> +}
> +
> +compare_svn_head_with () {
> + LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 svn log --limit 1 `git svn info --url` | \
> + sed -e 1,3d -e "/^-\+\$/d" >current &&
> + test_cmp current "$1"
> +}
> +
> +for H in ISO-8859-1 EUCJP ISO-2022-JP
> +do
> + test_expect_success "$H setup" '
> + mkdir $H &&
> + svn import -m "$H test" $H "$svnrepo"/$H &&
> + git svn clone "$svnrepo"/$H $H
> + '
> +done
> +
> +for H in ISO-8859-1 EUCJP ISO-2022-JP
> +do
> + test_expect_success "$H commit on git side" '
> + (
> + cd $H &&
> + git config i18n.commitencoding $H &&
> + git checkout -b t refs/remotes/git-svn &&
> + echo $H >F &&
> + git add F &&
> + git commit -a -F "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t3900/$H.txt &&
> + E=$(git cat-file commit HEAD | sed -ne "s/^encoding //p") &&
> + test "z$E" = "z$H"
> + compare_git_head_with "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t3900/$H.txt
> + )
> + '
> +done
> +
> +for H in ISO-8859-1 EUCJP ISO-2022-JP
> +do
> + test_expect_success "$H dcommit to svn" '
> + (
> + cd $H &&
> + git svn dcommit &&
> + git cat-file commit HEAD | grep git-svn-id: &&
> + E=$(git cat-file commit HEAD | sed -ne "s/^encoding //p") &&
> + test "z$E" = "z$H" &&
> + compare_git_head_with "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t3900/$H.txt
> + )
> + '
> +done
> +
> +test_expect_success 'ISO-8859-1 should match UTF-8 in svn' '
> +(
> + cd ISO-8859-1 &&
> + compare_svn_head_with "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t3900/1-UTF-8.txt
> +)
> +'
> +
> +for H in EUCJP ISO-2022-JP
> +do
> + test_expect_success '$H should match UTF-8 in svn' '
> + (
> + cd $H &&
> + compare_svn_head_with "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/t3900/2-UTF-8.txt
> + )
> + '
> +done
> +
> +test_done
> --
> Eric Wong
>
^ permalink raw reply
* [BUG] git log --walk-reflogs --pretty=oneline --all
From: Leo Razoumov @ 2008-10-30 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git Mailing List
Take a test repository that already has several commits in it, do the
following and watch the results:
sh$ git reflog expire --expire=1.second.ago --all
sh$ git log --walk-reflogs --pretty=oneline --all
I am using git-1.6.0.2 and that's what I get
sh$ git reflog expire --expire=1.second.ago --all
sh$ git log --walk-reflogs --pretty=oneline --all
60684d9df4193d91ef679173ef211275b9ad457f
810948facab2268139a1d4aac1368282e5ef1a9a
56f321d71b1bf6180977e9e3ff23836350ea2921 020
9e7f5cfb0fa20c44747f3d9111ccf161a2892
6160d0084fb8b02c3c1b5f1dd835d921d53ec86a
84de8b17fcab52a9c00587b81eb043c8614b37c5 68762f
c23396e88e8ef8a1497d4f340a1bd69fa4
96bb86bfdd5f506ef233608c2ca8d58a13c834dd
287c7e907cd41dba25454d5708262e73a80c2bbb 2fcde3a98
09755d33f4b4093b1f2ef319f7ebe36
8e5b9847a38905e9d921d231c712c54720a4de5a
6ecfbc2bde9b771fba56d4b85ad2952b4fe0405c 0b71dc288ac2
af4a2670e608c22e26beee272fd0 455601d6f414e400bfabb6410074b6ebee2696e0
e78e5c0b98dfd44cc9e1e5d56a1e094d295a7c97
First of all, this log's content is next to zero. Secondly, all
reflogs are already empty and I expected no output at all.
--Leo--
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Andreas Ericsson @ 2008-10-30 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Samuel Tardieu; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <2008-10-30-16-04-08+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>
Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> * 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:
>
...
>
> Argh, "master" has been pushed as well. Ok, I could have done
>
Ah, I see. I sympathize, although I really do think you'd be
better off by learning to explicitly push things.
> % git branch
> (because I know I am on the right branch but do not necessarily
> remember its full name all the time)
offtopic: Use shell-completion and set your PS1 to include the __git_ps1
output.
> % 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.
>
I fail to see why this would prevent you from starting a topic-branch.
In fact, I would have thought it was a reason *for* starting a topic.
>>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 :)
>
Thank you :-)
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Matthieu Moy @ 2008-10-30 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030143918.GB14744@mit.edu>
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> * Add the command "git revert-file <files>" which is syntactic sugar for:
>
> git checkout HEAD -- <files>
I don't think "revert-file" is a good name for this: although other
SCM often call this "revert", what Git calls "revert" is about
reverting an existing commit (it's "backout" in hg for example). The
terminology to revert the working tree to the last commited version is
already here in Git, it's "reset".
I've already argued in favor of allowing "git reset --hard <files>",
which is consistant with existing terminology and doesn't add an extra
command, but without success.
--
Matthieu
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Using the --track option when creating a branch
From: Bill Lear @ 2008-10-30 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Samuel Tardieu, git
In-Reply-To: <4909D1FE.2080403@op5.se>
On Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 16:25:50 (+0100) Andreas Ericsson writes:
>Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>> * 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:
>>
>
>...
>
>>
>> Argh, "master" has been pushed as well. Ok, I could have done
>>
>
>Ah, I see. I sympathize, although I really do think you'd be
>better off by learning to explicitly push things.
Exactly my concerns when I raised this issue originally. It's hard to
teach people to do this:
% git push origin master
or:
% git pull origin master
so that when they intend and MUST do this (lest chaos ensue):
% git push origin ReleaseBranch
or this:
% git pull origin ReleaseBranch
they don't mistakenly do this:
% git push
or:
% git pull
the reason being that every manual our users read says "use git push",
use "git pull", the examples being written for 'master' branch usage,
and people just assume that 'git push'/'git pull' are smart enough to
know which branch you are on and do the same logical thing as a bare
'git push'/'git pull' does when on master.
Several times this has happened to us: people make this mistake and
push or pull stuff into a branch they do not want. The pull is not so
bad, but the push messes up our central repo. This has happened both
here at my current company, and my previous one, and the persons
making the mistakes are neither sloppy nor inexperienced.
Bill
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Julian Phillips @ 2008-10-30 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030132453.GB24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:48:05AM +0000, Sam Vilain wrote:
>> +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).
This gets my vote ...
These are two of the reasons that I ended up ignoring git-send-email and
writing my own replacement. I found the whole format-patch/send-email
dance too cumbersome and confusing - particularly for sending a single
patch. To send a single patch I ended up with the command:
git mail-commmits --edit HEAD~1
It would be nice if I could replace this with:
git send-email --edit HEAD~1
;)
>
>> + * 'git am -3' the default; with global option to make it not the
>> + default for those that prefer the speed of -2
>> +
>> +
--
Julian
---
Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly mute,
for they shall be know as Dentists.
^ permalink raw reply
* filter-branch enhancements
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: pasky, srabbelier
In-Reply-To: <20081030132623.GC24098@artemis.corp>
The first patch is about making git-filter-branch use parse options, and
is independant, but the current state made my eyes bleed, and I wanted
to work on the second patch ;)
The second patch is more a request for comments, and if people think
it's useful, I'll try to check it actually works, and write some tests
for it.
^ permalink raw reply
* [Proof of concept PATCH] implement --prune-empty switch for filter-branch
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: pasky, srabbelier, Pierre Habouzit
In-Reply-To: <1225383538-23666-2-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org>
This is not a real patch (lacks a test at least) and is absolutely not
tested, though should basically work as expected.
This is only meant as a basis for discussion.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
---
Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++
git-filter-branch.sh | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
index fed6de6..451950b 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt
@@ -122,6 +122,10 @@ You can use the 'map' convenience function in this filter, and other
convenience functions, too. For example, calling 'skip_commit "$@"'
will leave out the current commit (but not its changes! If you want
that, use 'git-rebase' instead).
++
+You can also use the 'git_commit_non_empty_tree "$@"' instead of
+'git commit-tree "$@"' if you don't wish to keep commits with a single parent
+and that makes no change to the tree.
--tag-name-filter <command>::
This is the filter for rewriting tag names. When passed,
@@ -151,6 +155,16 @@ to other tags will be rewritten to point to the underlying commit.
The result will contain that directory (and only that) as its
project root.
+--prune-empty::
+ Some kind of filters will generate empty commits, that left the tree
+ untouched. This switch allow git-filter-branch to ignore such
+ commits. Though, this switch only applies for commits that have one
+ and only one parent, it will hence keep merges points. Also, this
+ option is not compatible with the use of '--commit-filter'. Though you
+ just need to use the function 'git_commit_non_empty_tree "$@"' instead
+ of the 'git commit-tree "$@"' idiom in your commit filter to make that
+ happen.
+
--original <namespace>::
Use this option to set the namespace where the original commits
will be stored. The default value is 'refs/original'.
diff --git a/git-filter-branch.sh b/git-filter-branch.sh
index 8af3126..9c83402 100755
--- a/git-filter-branch.sh
+++ b/git-filter-branch.sh
@@ -49,6 +49,15 @@ die()
echo "$*" >&2
exit 1
}
+
+git_commit_non_empty_tree()
+{
+ if test $# = 3 && test "$1" = $(git rev-parse "$3^{tree}"); then
+ map "$3"
+ else
+ git commit-tree "$@"
+ fi
+}
EOF
)
@@ -95,6 +104,7 @@ d= temporary path to use for rewriting
f,force force filter-branch to run
subdirectory-filter= only look at the history touching that specific subdirectory
original= namespace where the original commits will be stored (default: refs/original)
+prune-empty use this if you want to automatically prune empty commits
Filters that you can run:
@@ -121,11 +131,12 @@ filter_tree=
filter_index=
filter_parent=
filter_msg=cat
-filter_commit='git commit-tree "$@"'
+filter_commit=
filter_tag_name=
filter_subdir=
orig_namespace=refs/original/
force=
+prune_empty=
while :
do
case "$1" in
@@ -138,6 +149,8 @@ do
--original)
orig_namespace=$(expr "$2/" : '\(.*[^/]\)/*$')/
shift;;
+ --prune-empty)
+ prune_empty=t;;
--env-filter)
filter_env="$2"; shift;;
@@ -161,6 +174,17 @@ do
shift
done
+case "$prune_empty,$filter_commit" in
+',')
+ filter_commit='git commit-tree "$@"';;
+'t,')
+ filter_commit='git_commit_non_empty_tree "$@"';;
+','*)
+ ;;
+*)
+ die "Cannot set --prune-empty and --filter-commit at the same time"
+esac
+
case "$force" in
t)
rm -rf "$tempdir"
--
1.6.0.3.758.gc29b0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH] make git-filter-branch use parse-options.
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: pasky, srabbelier, Pierre Habouzit
In-Reply-To: <1225383538-23666-1-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
---
git-filter-branch.sh | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-filter-branch.sh b/git-filter-branch.sh
index 81392ad..8af3126 100755
--- a/git-filter-branch.sh
+++ b/git-filter-branch.sh
@@ -87,14 +87,26 @@ set_ident () {
echo "case \"\$GIT_${uid}_NAME\" in \"\") GIT_${uid}_NAME=\"\${GIT_${uid}_EMAIL%%@*}\" && export GIT_${uid}_NAME;; esac"
}
-USAGE="[--env-filter <command>] [--tree-filter <command>] \
-[--index-filter <command>] [--parent-filter <command>] \
-[--msg-filter <command>] [--commit-filter <command>] \
-[--tag-name-filter <command>] [--subdirectory-filter <directory>] \
-[--original <namespace>] [-d <directory>] [-f | --force] \
-[<rev-list options>...]"
-
-OPTIONS_SPEC=
+OPTIONS_KEEPDASHDASH=
+OPTIONS_SPEC="\
+git filter-branch [options] [<rev-list options>...]
+--
+d= temporary path to use for rewriting
+f,force force filter-branch to run
+subdirectory-filter= only look at the history touching that specific subdirectory
+original= namespace where the original commits will be stored (default: refs/original)
+
+ Filters that you can run:
+
+env-filter= environment filter to run
+tree-filter= tree rewriting filter to run
+index-filter= index rewriting filter to run
+parent-filter= parent rewriting filter to run
+msg-filter= commit message rewriting filter to run
+commit-filter= commit rewriting filter to run
+tag-name-filter= tag name rewriting filter to run
+"
+
. git-sh-setup
if [ "$(is_bare_repository)" = false ]; then
@@ -117,63 +129,36 @@ force=
while :
do
case "$1" in
- --)
- shift
- break
- ;;
--force|-f)
- shift
- force=t
- continue
- ;;
- -*)
- ;;
- *)
- break;
- esac
-
- # all switches take one argument
- ARG="$1"
- case "$#" in 1) usage ;; esac
- shift
- OPTARG="$1"
- shift
-
- case "$ARG" in
+ force=t;;
-d)
- tempdir="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ tempdir="$2"; shift;;
+ --subdirectory-filter)
+ filter_subdir="$2"; shift;;
+ --original)
+ orig_namespace=$(expr "$2/" : '\(.*[^/]\)/*$')/
+ shift;;
+
--env-filter)
- filter_env="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_env="$2"; shift;;
--tree-filter)
- filter_tree="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_tree="$2"; shift;;
--index-filter)
- filter_index="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_index="$2"; shift;;
--parent-filter)
- filter_parent="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_parent="$2"; shift;;
--msg-filter)
- filter_msg="$OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_msg="$2"; shift;;
--commit-filter)
- filter_commit="$functions; $OPTARG"
- ;;
+ filter_commit="$functions; $2"; shift;;
--tag-name-filter)
- filter_tag_name="$OPTARG"
- ;;
- --subdirectory-filter)
- filter_subdir="$OPTARG"
- ;;
- --original)
- orig_namespace=$(expr "$OPTARG/" : '\(.*[^/]\)/*$')/
- ;;
+ filter_tag_name="$2"; shift;;
+ --)
+ shift; break;;
*)
- usage
- ;;
+ usage;;
esac
+ shift
done
case "$force" in
--
1.6.0.3.758.gc29b0
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Theodore Tso @ 2008-10-30 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030144321.GF24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:43:21PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> 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.
The reason why it annoys me is because I often what to cherry-pick a
single patch to send to someone, and so while "git show 332d2e78"
shows me the patch, but if I want to use git-send-email for that
particular patch, "git format-patch 332d2e78" doesn't DTRT. I have to
type "git format-patch 332d2e78^..332d2e78" instead. I've learned to
live with it, but it's annoying each time I have to do it.
More generally, the fact that the CLI has different ways the same set
of arguments can be decoded can be quite confusing. The most obvious
way this turns up is to consider which set of commits are
displayed/formatted via these three commands:
git format-patch 332d2e78
git show 332d2e78
git log -p 332d2e78
The first formats all patches that follow commit 332d2e78 (not
including commit 332d2e78), the second shows just commit 332d2e78, and
the last prints all commits starting at 332d2e78 and before it.
For many workflows, the default way a single commit-id is interpreted
makes a lot of sense. But for a newcomer, it's very confusing. I'm
not saying that we should collapse everything down to a single way of
doing things, but git format-patch is an exception, and I don't think
anything else actually works that way; looking at the man page makes
it clear that it treats its argument as a revision range EXCEPT when
only a single commit is specified.
It can be justified, and maybe it's convenient enough that this is one
of those places where tutorials should just explicitly call this out
as one of those exceptions that make sense given common workflows.
But just as English can be heard to learn because "though", "through",
"plough", "cough", and "tough" don't rhyme even though they look like
they should (even though native speakers have no problem with it),
similarly this is one of those inconsistencies that makes git hard to
learn.
(And I get annoyed when I want to run git format-patch on a single
patch not at the tip of the tree; but if it's just me, I can write a
"git format-single-patch" wrapper script to get around it.)
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Documented --no-checkout option in git-svn
From: _vi @ 2008-10-30 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: gitster, Vitaly "_Vi" Shukela
From: Vitaly "_Vi" Shukela <public_vi@tut.by>
Signed-off-by: Vitaly "_Vi" Shukela <public_vi@tut.by>
---
Documentation/git-svn.txt | 6 ++++++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-svn.txt b/Documentation/git-svn.txt
index 84c8f3c..90784a5 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-svn.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-svn.txt
@@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ COMMANDS
tracking. The name of the [svn-remote "..."] section in the
.git/config file may be specified as an optional command-line
argument.
+
+--no-checkout
+ Do not checkout latest revision after fetching.
'clone'::
Runs 'init' and 'fetch'. It will automatically create a
@@ -103,6 +106,9 @@ COMMANDS
the working tree; and the 'rebase' command will be able
to update the working tree with the latest changes.
+--no-checkout
+ Do not checkout latest revision after fetching.
+
'rebase'::
This fetches revisions from the SVN parent of the current HEAD
and rebases the current (uncommitted to SVN) work against it.
--
1.5.6.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030163056.GA8899@mit.edu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1370 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 04:30:56PM +0000, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:43:21PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> The reason why it annoys me is because I often what to cherry-pick a
> single patch to send to someone, and so while "git show 332d2e78"
> shows me the patch, but if I want to use git-send-email for that
> particular patch, "git format-patch 332d2e78" doesn't DTRT. I have to
> type "git format-patch 332d2e78^..332d2e78" instead. I've learned to
> live with it, but it's annoying each time I have to do it.
[...]
> (And I get annoyed when I want to run git format-patch on a single
> patch not at the tip of the tree; but if it's just me, I can write a
> "git format-single-patch" wrapper script to get around it.)
In fact I believe that what we lack is a shorthand for:
$sha1^..$sha1 because that would solve both of your issues, and it's
something that has bothered me in the past too for other commands.
--
·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: Sam Vilain @ 2008-10-30 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Ericsson; +Cc: Bill Lear, git
In-Reply-To: <4909A7C4.30507@op5.se>
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:25 +0100, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> >> 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.
> This particular bikeshed was painted a long time ago, with the consensus
> going in favour of "git push" pushing all *matching* refspecs.
I realise that - I just found it interesting that there was a user who
explicitly expected this not to be the case.
Which I think is reasonable, because it's what 'git pull' does. I
myself have encountered many people who did not like the current default
behaviour. I think far from "bikeshedding" this is quite an important
part of the ui experience.
Sam.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Use find instead of perl in t5000 to get file modification time
From: Sam Vilain @ 2008-10-30 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Riesen
Cc: Git Mailing List, Junio C Hamano, Jeff King, René Scharfe
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0810290338j1beaa25bx9fb373a69f5dfe7@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 11:38 +0100, Alex Riesen wrote:
> I could not find what exactly does the ActiveState's Perl use for its stat
> implementation (and honestly, have no motivation to look harder).
> It seems to honor TZ, but the produced time does not seem to be either
> local or GMT.
See, the difference is that the perl is portable and your patch isn't.
Can you at least reveal how far out the value printed by the perl
fragment was from the expected value, and what your TZ offset is in
seconds. It might be pointing to a deeper problem that could affect
more than just this test case.
Sam.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2008-10-30 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Mike Hommey, Shawn O. Pearce, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030150135.GG24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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 $foo doesn't is definitely handy.
No. This is only the first step towards insanity.
In many cases origin/$foo == origin/master so this can't work in that
case which is, after all, the common case. Therefore I think this is
wrong to add magic operations which are not useful for the common case
and actively _hide_ how git actually works. Not only will you have to
explain how git works anyway for that common origin/master case, but
you'll also have to explain why sometimes the magic works and sometimes
not. Please keep such convenience shortcuts for your own scripts and/or
aliases.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2008-10-30 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthieu Moy; +Cc: Theodore Tso, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <vpqmygmw1mr.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> I've already argued in favor of allowing "git reset --hard <files>",
> which is consistant with existing terminology and doesn't add an extra
> command, but without success.
If you have a file argument, the --hard option is redundant, isn't it?
So what about simply "git reset <file>" ?
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2008-10-30 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Tso; +Cc: Pierre Habouzit, Sam Vilain, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030163056.GA8899@mit.edu>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:43:21PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> The reason why it annoys me is because I often what to cherry-pick a
> single patch to send to someone, and so while "git show 332d2e78"
> shows me the patch, but if I want to use git-send-email for that
> particular patch, "git format-patch 332d2e78" doesn't DTRT. I have to
> type "git format-patch 332d2e78^..332d2e78" instead.
try:
git show --pretty=email 332d2e78
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Pierre Habouzit @ 2008-10-30 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: Matthieu Moy, Theodore Tso, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810301259130.13034@xanadu.home>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:00:18PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
> > I've already argued in favor of allowing "git reset --hard <files>",
> > which is consistant with existing terminology and doesn't add an extra
> > command, but without success.
>
> If you have a file argument, the --hard option is redundant, isn't it?
> So what about simply "git reset <file>" ?
errrrm, git reset <file> resets the index notion of the file to its status
in HEAD... which I'm sure is *somehow* useful to "some" people ;P
--
·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: Nicolas Pitre @ 2008-10-30 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Matthieu Moy, Theodore Tso, Sam Vilain, git
In-Reply-To: <20081030170329.GK24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:00:18PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >
> > > I've already argued in favor of allowing "git reset --hard <files>",
> > > which is consistant with existing terminology and doesn't add an extra
> > > command, but without success.
> >
> > If you have a file argument, the --hard option is redundant, isn't it?
> > So what about simply "git reset <file>" ?
>
> errrrm, git reset <file> resets the index notion of the file to its status
> in HEAD... which I'm sure is *somehow* useful to "some" people ;P
Too bad...
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Sam Vilain @ 2008-10-30 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas Pitre; +Cc: Pierre Habouzit, Mike Hommey, Shawn O. Pearce, git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810301105350.13034@xanadu.home>
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 12:53 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Seconded.
> >
> > Having git-checkout $foo being a shorthand for git checkout -b $foo
> > origin/$foo when origin/$foo exists and $foo doesn't is definitely handy.
>
> No. This is only the first step towards insanity.
>
> In many cases origin/$foo == origin/master so this can't work in that
> case which is, after all, the common case.
I don't understand that argument at all, can you explain further?
> Therefore I think this is
> wrong to add magic operations which are not useful for the common case
> and actively _hide_ how git actually works. Not only will you have to
> explain how git works anyway for that common origin/master case, but
> you'll also have to explain why sometimes the magic works and sometimes
> not. Please keep such convenience shortcuts for your own scripts and/or
> aliases.
It's not about magic, it's about sensible defaults. Currently this use
case is an error, and the resultant command is very long to type, and
involves typing the branch name twice. I end up writing things like:
git checkout -b {,origin/}wr34251-do-something
For the user who doesn't know to use the ksh-style {} blocks this is
voodoo. The longer form is cumbersome.
For the case where the thing you type is a resolvable reference, it
would just check it out, as now.
Sam.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add a planning document for the next CLI revamp
From: Sam Vilain @ 2008-10-30 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pierre Habouzit; +Cc: Theodore Tso, git, Sam Vilain
In-Reply-To: <20081030164357.GJ24098@artemis.corp>
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:43 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> In fact I believe that what we lack is a shorthand for:
>
> $sha1^..$sha1 because that would solve both of your issues, and it's
> something that has bothered me in the past too for other commands.
There is already a shorthand for that;
$sha1^!
Indeed passing that to git-format-patch has the intended effect; it
causes it to save a patch for just the commit in question.
I agree that it would make more sense for the current behaviour to be
changed;
git format-patch origin/master..
Isn't that much more to type than:
git format-patch origin/master
And it makes the case where you just want to format a single patch work
better.
However, I worry about the backwards incompatibility. The other changes
I listed didn't really violate existing expectations.
That being said, the case where a single commit reference is passed,
with no range, should be relatively easy to detect. In this situation
it could return an error, and encourage the user to use "--since" or
"--only"; or to configure one of those to be the default.
I'm wondering whether it's worth building some kind of mechanism to
notice that settings like this have not been set, and to print a warning
like "warning: you are using a git that introduced minor command
changes; use 'git config --new' to pick your defaults" - that way,
changes to command operation could be introduced that would not annoy
older users so much.
Sam.
^ permalink raw reply
* [JGIT PATCH 0/3] Improved object validation
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2008-10-30 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robin Rosenberg; +Cc: git
This is mostly a resend as I haven't heard anything on the series.
One new patch at the end, to handle '.' and '..' cases.
Shawn O. Pearce (3):
Check object connectivity during fetch if fsck is enabled
Add --[no-]thin and --[no-]fsck optiosn to fetch command line tool
Don't permit '.' or '..' in tree entries
.../src/org/spearce/jgit/pgm/Fetch.java | 20 +++++++++++++
.../org/spearce/jgit/lib/ObjectCheckerTest.java | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++
.../src/org/spearce/jgit/lib/ObjectChecker.java | 7 ++++
.../jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java | 4 ++
.../spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java | 22 ++++++++++++++
.../org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java | 13 +++++++-
.../spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java | 4 ++
.../jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java | 4 ++
8 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply
* [JGIT PATCH 1/3] Check object connectivity during fetch if fsck is enabled
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2008-10-30 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robin Rosenberg; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1225388785-26818-1-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org>
If we are fetching over a pack oriented connection and we are doing
object-level fsck validation we need to also verify the graph is
fully connected after the fetch is complete. This additional check
is necessary to ensure the peer didn't omit objects that we don't
have, but which are listed as needing to be present.
On the walk style fetch connection we can bypass this check, as the
connectivity was implicitly verified by the walker as it downloaded
objects and built its queue of things to fetch. Native pack and
bundle transports however do not have this check built into them,
and require that we execute the work ourselves.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
---
.../jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java | 4 +++
.../spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++
.../org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java | 13 ++++++++++-
.../spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java | 4 +++
.../jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java | 4 +++
5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java
index a542eb7..542a8a9 100644
--- a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java
+++ b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/BasePackFetchConnection.java
@@ -146,6 +146,10 @@ public boolean didFetchIncludeTags() {
return false;
}
+ public boolean didFetchTestConnectivity() {
+ return false;
+ }
+
protected void doFetch(final ProgressMonitor monitor,
final Collection<Ref> want) throws TransportException {
try {
diff --git a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java
index 9d25b0d..d93972d 100644
--- a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java
+++ b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchConnection.java
@@ -111,4 +111,26 @@ public void fetch(final ProgressMonitor monitor, final Collection<Ref> want)
* false if tags were not implicitly obtained.
*/
public boolean didFetchIncludeTags();
+
+ /**
+ * Did the last {@link #fetch(ProgressMonitor, Collection)} validate graph?
+ * <p>
+ * Some transports walk the object graph on the client side, with the client
+ * looking for what objects it is missing and requesting them individually
+ * from the remote peer. By virtue of completing the fetch call the client
+ * implicitly tested the object connectivity, as every object in the graph
+ * was either already local or was requested successfully from the peer. In
+ * such transports this method returns true.
+ * <p>
+ * Some transports assume the remote peer knows the Git object graph and is
+ * able to supply a fully connected graph to the client (although it may
+ * only be transferring the parts the client does not yet have). Its faster
+ * to assume such remote peers are well behaved and send the correct
+ * response to the client. In such tranports this method returns false.
+ *
+ * @return true if the last fetch had to perform a connectivity check on the
+ * client side in order to succeed; false if the last fetch assumed
+ * the remote peer supplied a complete graph.
+ */
+ public boolean didFetchTestConnectivity();
}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java
index 654572d..bb2d051 100644
--- a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java
+++ b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/FetchProcess.java
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ else if (tagopt == TagOpt.FETCH_TAGS)
final boolean includedTags;
if (!askFor.isEmpty() && !askForIsComplete()) {
- conn.fetch(monitor, askFor.values());
+ fetchObjects(monitor);
includedTags = conn.didFetchIncludeTags();
// Connection was used for object transfer. If we
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ else if (tagopt == TagOpt.FETCH_TAGS)
if (!askFor.isEmpty() && (!includedTags || !askForIsComplete())) {
reopenConnection();
if (!askFor.isEmpty())
- conn.fetch(monitor, askFor.values());
+ fetchObjects(monitor);
}
}
} finally {
@@ -171,6 +171,15 @@ else if (tagopt == TagOpt.FETCH_TAGS)
}
}
+ private void fetchObjects(final ProgressMonitor monitor)
+ throws TransportException {
+ conn.fetch(monitor, askFor.values());
+ if (transport.isCheckFetchedObjects()
+ && !conn.didFetchTestConnectivity() && !askForIsComplete())
+ throw new TransportException(transport.getURI(),
+ "peer did not supply a complete object graph");
+ }
+
private void closeConnection() {
if (conn != null) {
conn.close();
diff --git a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java
index 5b321a0..7d38b02 100644
--- a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java
+++ b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/TransportBundle.java
@@ -165,6 +165,10 @@ private String readLine(final byte[] hdrbuf) throws IOException {
return RawParseUtils.decode(Constants.CHARSET, hdrbuf, 0, lf);
}
+ public boolean didFetchTestConnectivity() {
+ return false;
+ }
+
@Override
protected void doFetch(final ProgressMonitor monitor,
final Collection<Ref> want) throws TransportException {
diff --git a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java
index 5638454..d089f7b 100644
--- a/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java
+++ b/org.spearce.jgit/src/org/spearce/jgit/transport/WalkFetchConnection.java
@@ -189,6 +189,10 @@ WalkFetchConnection(final WalkTransport wt, final WalkRemoteObjectDatabase w) {
workQueue = new LinkedList<ObjectId>();
}
+ public boolean didFetchTestConnectivity() {
+ return true;
+ }
+
@Override
protected void doFetch(final ProgressMonitor monitor,
final Collection<Ref> want) throws TransportException {
--
1.6.0.3.756.gb776d
^ permalink raw reply related
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox