* Re: [PATCH] send-mail: Add option to sleep between sending each email.
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra @ 2011-09-08 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Georgi Chorbadzhiyski; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1315428191-9769-1-git-send-email-gf@unixsol.org>
Hi Georgi,
Georgi Chorbadzhiyski writes:
> Sometimes when sending lots of changes it is not nice
> to send emails as fast as possible. Of course you can
> confirm each email after waiting couple of seconds but
> this is not optimal. This patch adds --sleep option
> to git-send-mail and corresponding sendmail.sleep config
> variable to control how much seconds to wait between
> sending each email. The default is 0 (not wait at all).
I use git-send-email a lot, and I ask it to print out the list of all
emails once before confirming. After confirming, I just switch back
to Emacs and continue work- in the many instances, I've never actually
needed to slow the process down. If anything, I wished it could
concurrently send many emails and do things /faster/ *. I'm a little
curious about why you want to slow it down- is your SMTP server
configured to block you because it suspects that you're trying to
spam?
Thanks.
* I first need to see if SMTP servers today can take in emails at this
speed without suspecting spam.
-- Ram
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git push output goes into stderr
From: Sitaram Chamarty @ 2011-09-08 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Clemens Buchacher, Junio C Hamano, Lynn Lin, git
In-Reply-To: <20110908070706.GA1454@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:12:48AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
>> > But with a program whose main function is to perform an action, like
>> > "git push", I think there are really two ways to look at it:
>> >
>> > 1. There is no main output; any progress or status update is just
>> > diagnostic chat, and should go to stderr.
>> >
>> > 2. The main output is the status report; it goes to stdout, and
>> > progress updates go to stderr.
>>
>> I always thought if you write stuff to stdout the remote client gets
>> confused because it is executing to a defined protocol and suddenly
>> sees unexpected input in the middle.
>>
>> Bit if *you* are saying this (output random stuff to STDOUT) can
>> happen if we want it to, clearly I was wrong...
>
> For the remote side, yes, we have to be sure not to pollute stdout,
> because that's where the protocol is going.. But the status table is
> generated on the client side, so stdout is just connected to the user's
> terminal there.
aah ok, that makes sense; thanks.
^ permalink raw reply
* How to specify a default <start-point> for git branch
From: Lay, Stefan @ 2011-09-08 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git@vger.kernel.org, jgit-dev@eclipse.org; +Cc: manuel.doniger@googlemail.com
Is it possible in git to configure a default <start-point> for the git-branch command?
For some workflows it could be useful to define e.g. a remote-tracking branch as the default <start-point> for new branches. Then there would be a tracking configuration for each created branch and tools like ALM tools could easily determine the remote repository.
For EGit-/JGit-development there is a proposal in Gerrit to add a new config parameter workflow.defaultsourceref (http://egit.eclipse.org/r/#change,4168). I suggested to use workflow.branchstartpoint instead.
What do you think about such a property?
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Add a note to the README for new contributors
From: Andrew Ardill @ 2011-09-08 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <1315464479-6876-1-git-send-email-andrew.ardill@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com>
---
README | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/README b/README
index 67cfeb2..b67a881 100644
--- a/README
+++ b/README
@@ -52,3 +52,7 @@ git.git (stable)" and "What's cooking in git.git (topics)" and
the discussion following them on the mailing list give a good
reference for project status, development direction and
remaining tasks.
+
+If you are looking to contribute to the project, a good place to start
+is http://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/note-from-maintainer.html and in
+Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
--
1.7.6.msysgit.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] remove prefix argument from pathspec_prefix
From: Clemens Buchacher @ 2011-09-08 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <7vaaah8muf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 12:58:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Is it because we no longer ever return "prefix" we pass in which is a
> > pointer to a constant memory region to begin with?
> >
> > We also didn't free() in the earlier code (because we do not know if it
> > can be freed) and leaking xmemdupz() if the function didn't return the
> > "prefix", but now you plugged the small leak. Isn't it something you
> > should advertise?
>
> Nah, the leak is not necessarily plugged in all callers anyway, so scratch
> that part. I've rewritten it like this:
Ok.
The only other caller, though, is cmd_ls_files(). And it would be
trivial to plug that leak as well.
But is it considered a leak, if the program is going to terminate
right after the function returns? I recall that being used as an
argument against free'ing such memory on this list.
On the other hand, that practice makes it harder to analyze leaks
using memory leak detectors like for example valgrind.
Clemens
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git-rebase skips automatically no more needed commits
From: Francis Moreau @ 2011-09-08 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Michael J Gruber, git
In-Reply-To: <7vk49k48q4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Francis Moreau <francis.moro@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If I start the rebase process with : "git rebase -i -p master foo"
>> then the filtering is happening. Here 'foo' has been created with
>> v2.6.39 tag as start point and contains some patches cherry-picked
>> from the upstream.
>>
>> However if I call git-rebase this way: "git rebase -i -p --onto master
>> v2.6.39 foo", then it seems that no filtering is done.
>>
>> Is that expected ?
>
> Because "rebase --onto A B C" has to be usable when commit A does not have
> any ancestry relationship with the history between B and C,
But is it the common case ? That would mean that A and B are part of
totaly independant branches which is not that common I think.
I'm using "git rebase --onto A B C" because I want to simplify git's
work. I know that any commits between A..B are already in A history
and I'm not interested in rebasing them anyways.
> I wouldn't be
> surprised if the command does not look at commits on the history that lead
> to A that _might_ be related to the ones between B and C. It does not know
> how far to dig from A and stop, and obviously you do not want to dig down
> to the beginning of the history. "rebase A B" on the other hand can safely
> stop digging the history back from A down to where the history leading to
> B forked (i.e. merge base between A and B).
Hmm I dont understand why "rebase --onto A B C" wouldn't try to find
the merge base between A and B. If it doesn't (which is quite uncommon
I guess) then don't do the filtering as we're currently doing but if
there's a merge base (common case) then do the filtering.
No ?
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git push output goes into stderr
From: Jeff King @ 2011-09-08 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sitaram Chamarty; +Cc: Clemens Buchacher, Junio C Hamano, Lynn Lin, git
In-Reply-To: <CAMK1S_gro=THLkc_wrHSLwUVaJp9k-zRDuFDQpOGaiyBTHiDnQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:12:48AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
> > But with a program whose main function is to perform an action, like
> > "git push", I think there are really two ways to look at it:
> >
> > 1. There is no main output; any progress or status update is just
> > diagnostic chat, and should go to stderr.
> >
> > 2. The main output is the status report; it goes to stdout, and
> > progress updates go to stderr.
>
> I always thought if you write stuff to stdout the remote client gets
> confused because it is executing to a defined protocol and suddenly
> sees unexpected input in the middle.
>
> Bit if *you* are saying this (output random stuff to STDOUT) can
> happen if we want it to, clearly I was wrong...
For the remote side, yes, we have to be sure not to pollute stdout,
because that's where the protocol is going.. But the status table is
generated on the client side, so stdout is just connected to the user's
terminal there.
We already generate --porcelain status output from push on stdout (and
again, that makes sense to me philosophically, because the user is
asking push to generate the output). So it's clearly not a big deal.
It's just a matter of taste.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Make it easier for new contributors to come to grips with the project
From: Andrew Ardill @ 2011-09-08 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Something that has been difficult as a developer looking to contribute
to this project is trying to understand how everything is organised.
In particular, working out what 'pu' stood for took quite a long time.
Following is a (very) simple patch to the README that will at least
send potential contributors off in a useful direction. I know I would
have saved much time if this note was there when I started looking.
Potentially, the wiki and public website could be updated to provide
similar links and start-up hints.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git.kernel.org problems?
From: J.H. @ 2011-09-08 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Ardill; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAH5451mouz=7Bvsk18iuB04aFwp0VS2mNYSJdmCH82iw6xU7Qw@mail.gmail.com>
There are currently known dns issues that are being worked on.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
On 09/07/2011 09:39 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> Anyone else getting issues connecting to git.kernel.org sites?
> http://www.isup.me/git.kernel.org is reporting that it is up sometimes
> and down sometimes, and I have resolved some resources fine earlier
> (for example git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=tree;h=todo;hb=todo)
> however everything fails for me now.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew Ardill
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git push output goes into stderr
From: Sitaram Chamarty @ 2011-09-08 5:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Clemens Buchacher, Junio C Hamano, Lynn Lin, git
In-Reply-To: <20110907215716.GJ13364@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:49:16AM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 05:57:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Lynn Lin <lynn.xin.lin@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > When I create a local branch and then push it to remote. I find that
>> > > the output without error goes into stderr, is this expected?
>> >
>> > Progress output are sent to the stderr stream.
>>
>> But it's not only progress output that goes to stderr in case of
>> git push. Even the summary written in tranport_print_push_status
>> goes to stderr, unless we specify git push --porcelain. Can't we
>> let that part of the output go to stdout unconditionally?
>
> We could, though it makes more sense on stderr to me.
>
> Stdout has always been about "the main program output" and stderr about
> diagnostic messages. With a program whose main function is to generate
> output (e.g., "git tag -l", it's very easy to know that the list of tags
> is the main program output (which you don't want to pollute with
> anything else), and any problems or even general chattiness goes to
> stderr.
>
> But with a program whose main function is to perform an action, like
> "git push", I think there are really two ways to look at it:
>
> 1. There is no main output; any progress or status update is just
> diagnostic chat, and should go to stderr.
>
> 2. The main output is the status report; it goes to stdout, and
> progress updates go to stderr.
I always thought if you write stuff to stdout the remote client gets
confused because it is executing to a defined protocol and suddenly
sees unexpected input in the middle.
Bit if *you* are saying this (output random stuff to STDOUT) can
happen if we want it to, clearly I was wrong...
> I think both are equally valid mental models, and both are consistent
> with the philosophy above. If we switch, I wouldn't be surprised to see
> somebody say "why is this going to stdout, it should be on stderr". In
> fact, I seem to recall that we've had this discussion before on the
> list.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 5/2] push -s: receiving end
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-08 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce, Johan Herland
In-Reply-To: <7vehzrzm0e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
This stores the GPG signed push certificate in the receiving repository
using the notes mechanism. The certificate is appended to a note in the
refs/notes/signed-push tree for each object that appears on the right
hand side of the push certificate, i.e. the object that was pushed to
update the tip of a ref.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
* This is largely untested, so take it with a large grain of salt.
This concludes tonight's hacking session for me.
builtin/receive-pack.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
index 307fc3b..257f2a5 100644
--- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
@@ -11,6 +11,11 @@
#include "transport.h"
#include "string-list.h"
#include "sha1-array.h"
+#include "gpg-interface.h"
+#include "notes.h"
+#include "notes-merge.h"
+#include "blob.h"
+#include "tag.h"
static const char receive_pack_usage[] = "git receive-pack <git-dir>";
@@ -156,6 +161,7 @@ struct command {
};
static const char pre_receive_hook[] = "hooks/pre-receive";
+static const char pre_receive_signature_hook[] = "hooks/pre-receive-signature";
static const char post_receive_hook[] = "hooks/post-receive";
static void rp_error(const char *err, ...) __attribute__((format (printf, 1, 2)));
@@ -581,6 +587,22 @@ static void check_aliased_updates(struct command *commands)
string_list_clear(&ref_list, 0);
}
+static void get_note_text(struct strbuf *buf, struct notes_tree *t,
+ const unsigned char *object)
+{
+ const unsigned char *sha1 = get_note(t, object);
+ char *text;
+ unsigned long len;
+ enum object_type type;
+
+ if (!sha1)
+ return;
+ text = read_sha1_file(sha1, &type, &len);
+ if (text && len && type == OBJ_BLOB)
+ strbuf_add(buf, text, len);
+ free(text);
+}
+
static int record_signed_push(char *cert)
{
/*
@@ -591,19 +613,57 @@ static int record_signed_push(char *cert)
*
* You could also feed the signed push certificate to GPG,
* verify the signer identity, and all the other fun stuff,
- * including feeding it to "pre-push-verify-signature" hook.
- *
- * Here we just throw it to stderr to demonstrate that the
- * codepath is being exercised.
+ * including feeding it to "pre-receive-signature" hook.
*/
+ size_t total, payload;
char *cp, *ep;
- for (cp = cert; *cp; cp = ep) {
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct notes_tree *t;
+ struct strbuf nbuf = STRBUF_INIT;
+
+ init_notes(NULL, "refs/notes/signed-push", NULL, 0);
+ t = &default_notes_tree;
+
+ total = strlen(cert);
+ payload = parse_signature(cert, total);
+ for (cp = cert; cp < cert + payload; cp = ep) {
+ unsigned char sha1[20], nsha1[20];
+
ep = strchrnul(cp, '\n');
if (*ep == '\n')
ep++;
- fprintf(stderr, "RSP: %.*s", (int)(ep - cp), cp);
+ if (prefixcmp(cp, "Update: "))
+ continue;
+ cp += strlen("Update: ");
+ if (get_sha1_hex(cp, sha1) || cp[40] != ' ')
+ continue;
+ cp += 41;
+ if (get_sha1_hex(cp, sha1) || cp[40] != ' ')
+ continue;
+
+ get_note_text(&nbuf, t, sha1);
+ if (nbuf.len)
+ strbuf_addch(&nbuf, '\n');
+ strbuf_add(&nbuf, cert, total);
+ if (write_sha1_file(nbuf.buf, nbuf.len, blob_type, nsha1) ||
+ add_note(t, sha1, nsha1, NULL))
+ ret = error(_("unable to write note object"));
+ strbuf_reset(&nbuf);
}
- return 0;
+
+ if (!ret) {
+ unsigned char commit[20];
+ unsigned char parent[20];
+ struct ref_lock *lock;
+
+ resolve_ref(t->ref, parent, 0, NULL);
+ lock = lock_any_ref_for_update(t->ref, parent, 0);
+ create_notes_commit(t, NULL, "push", commit);
+ ret = write_ref_sha1(lock, commit, "push");
+ }
+ free_notes(t);
+
+ return ret;
}
static void execute_commands(struct command *commands, const char *unpacker_error)
--
1.7.7.rc0.188.g3793ac
^ permalink raw reply related
* git.kernel.org problems?
From: Andrew Ardill @ 2011-09-08 4:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Anyone else getting issues connecting to git.kernel.org sites?
http://www.isup.me/git.kernel.org is reporting that it is up sometimes
and down sometimes, and I have resolved some resources fine earlier
(for example git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=tree;h=todo;hb=todo)
however everything fails for me now.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Andrew Ardill
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 4/2] push -s: send signed push certificate
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-08 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce
In-Reply-To: <7vbouw2hqg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
And this uses the GPG interface to sign the push certificate. The format
of the signed certificate is very similar to a signed tag, in that the
result is a concatenation of the payload, immediately followed by a
detached signature.
This places the same constraint as an annotated tag on the push
certificate payload; it has to be a text file and the final line
must not be an incomplete line.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
builtin/send-pack.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/send-pack.c b/builtin/send-pack.c
index 3193f34..298e181 100644
--- a/builtin/send-pack.c
+++ b/builtin/send-pack.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include "send-pack.h"
#include "quote.h"
#include "transport.h"
+#include "gpg-interface.h"
static const char send_pack_usage[] =
"git send-pack [--all | --mirror] [--dry-run] [--force] [--receive-pack=<git-receive-pack>] [--verbose] [--thin] [<host>:]<directory> [<ref>...]\n"
@@ -237,25 +238,18 @@ static int sideband_demux(int in, int out, void *data)
return ret;
}
-static void sign_push_certificate(struct strbuf *cert)
+/*
+ * Take the contents of cert->buf, and have the user GPG sign it, and
+ * read it back in the strbuf.
+ */
+static int sign_push_certificate(struct strbuf *cert)
{
/*
- * Here, take the contents of cert->buf, and have the user GPG
- * sign it, and read it back in the strbuf.
- *
- * You may want to append some extra info to cert before giving
- * it to GPG, possibly via a hook.
- *
- * Here we upcase them just to demonstrate that the codepath
- * is being exercised.
+ * You may want to append some extra info to cert before
+ * giving it to GPG, possibly via a hook, here.
*/
- char *cp;
- for (cp = cert->buf; *cp; cp++) {
- int ch = *cp;
- if ('a' <= ch && ch <= 'z')
- *cp = toupper(ch);
- }
- return;
+
+ return sign_buffer(cert, git_committer_info(IDENT_NO_DATE));
}
int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
@@ -370,7 +364,8 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
if (signed_push) {
char *cp, *ep;
- sign_push_certificate(&push_cert);
+ if (sign_push_certificate(&push_cert))
+ return error(_("failed to sign push certificate"));
strbuf_reset(&req_buf);
for (cp = push_cert.buf; *cp; cp = ep) {
ep = strchrnul(cp, '\n');
--
1.7.7.rc0.188.g3793ac
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH 3/2] Split GPG interface into its own helper library
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-08 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce
In-Reply-To: <7vbouw2hqg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
This moves existing code from builtin/tag.c (for signing) and
builtin/verify-tag.c (for verifying) to a new gpg-interface.c file to
provide a more generic library interface.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
Makefile | 2 +
builtin/tag.c | 60 ++++----------------------------
builtin/verify-tag.c | 35 ++-----------------
gpg-interface.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gpg-interface.h | 11 ++++++
5 files changed, 117 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gpg-interface.c
create mode 100644 gpg-interface.h
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 8d6d451..2183223 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -530,6 +530,7 @@ LIB_H += exec_cmd.h
LIB_H += fsck.h
LIB_H += gettext.h
LIB_H += git-compat-util.h
+LIB_H += gpg-interface.h
LIB_H += graph.h
LIB_H += grep.h
LIB_H += hash.h
@@ -620,6 +621,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += entry.o
LIB_OBJS += environment.o
LIB_OBJS += exec_cmd.o
LIB_OBJS += fsck.o
+LIB_OBJS += gpg-interface.o
LIB_OBJS += graph.o
LIB_OBJS += grep.o
LIB_OBJS += hash.o
diff --git a/builtin/tag.c b/builtin/tag.c
index 667515e..e9d36fa 100644
--- a/builtin/tag.c
+++ b/builtin/tag.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#include "parse-options.h"
#include "diff.h"
#include "revision.h"
+#include "gpg-interface.h"
static const char * const git_tag_usage[] = {
"git tag [-a|-s|-u <key-id>] [-f] [-m <msg>|-F <file>] <tagname> [<head>]",
@@ -208,60 +209,13 @@ static int verify_tag(const char *name, const char *ref,
static int do_sign(struct strbuf *buffer)
{
- struct child_process gpg;
- const char *args[4];
- char *bracket;
- int len;
- int i, j;
+ const char *key;
- if (!*signingkey) {
- if (strlcpy(signingkey, git_committer_info(IDENT_ERROR_ON_NO_NAME),
- sizeof(signingkey)) > sizeof(signingkey) - 1)
- return error(_("committer info too long."));
- bracket = strchr(signingkey, '>');
- if (bracket)
- bracket[1] = '\0';
- }
-
- /* When the username signingkey is bad, program could be terminated
- * because gpg exits without reading and then write gets SIGPIPE. */
- signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
-
- memset(&gpg, 0, sizeof(gpg));
- gpg.argv = args;
- gpg.in = -1;
- gpg.out = -1;
- args[0] = "gpg";
- args[1] = "-bsau";
- args[2] = signingkey;
- args[3] = NULL;
-
- if (start_command(&gpg))
- return error(_("could not run gpg."));
-
- if (write_in_full(gpg.in, buffer->buf, buffer->len) != buffer->len) {
- close(gpg.in);
- close(gpg.out);
- finish_command(&gpg);
- return error(_("gpg did not accept the tag data"));
- }
- close(gpg.in);
- len = strbuf_read(buffer, gpg.out, 1024);
- close(gpg.out);
-
- if (finish_command(&gpg) || !len || len < 0)
- return error(_("gpg failed to sign the tag"));
-
- /* Strip CR from the line endings, in case we are on Windows. */
- for (i = j = 0; i < buffer->len; i++)
- if (buffer->buf[i] != '\r') {
- if (i != j)
- buffer->buf[j] = buffer->buf[i];
- j++;
- }
- strbuf_setlen(buffer, j);
-
- return 0;
+ if (*signingkey)
+ key = signingkey;
+ else
+ key = git_committer_info(IDENT_ERROR_ON_NO_NAME|IDENT_NO_DATE);
+ return sign_buffer(buffer, key);
}
static const char tag_template[] =
diff --git a/builtin/verify-tag.c b/builtin/verify-tag.c
index 3134766..8b4f742 100644
--- a/builtin/verify-tag.c
+++ b/builtin/verify-tag.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include "run-command.h"
#include <signal.h>
#include "parse-options.h"
+#include "gpg-interface.h"
static const char * const verify_tag_usage[] = {
"git verify-tag [-v|--verbose] <tag>...",
@@ -19,42 +20,12 @@ static const char * const verify_tag_usage[] = {
static int run_gpg_verify(const char *buf, unsigned long size, int verbose)
{
- struct child_process gpg;
- const char *args_gpg[] = {"gpg", "--verify", "FILE", "-", NULL};
- char path[PATH_MAX];
- size_t len;
- int fd, ret;
+ int len;
- fd = git_mkstemp(path, PATH_MAX, ".git_vtag_tmpXXXXXX");
- if (fd < 0)
- return error("could not create temporary file '%s': %s",
- path, strerror(errno));
- if (write_in_full(fd, buf, size) < 0)
- return error("failed writing temporary file '%s': %s",
- path, strerror(errno));
- close(fd);
-
- /* find the length without signature */
len = parse_signature(buf, size);
if (verbose)
write_in_full(1, buf, len);
-
- memset(&gpg, 0, sizeof(gpg));
- gpg.argv = args_gpg;
- gpg.in = -1;
- args_gpg[2] = path;
- if (start_command(&gpg)) {
- unlink(path);
- return error("could not run gpg.");
- }
-
- write_in_full(gpg.in, buf, len);
- close(gpg.in);
- ret = finish_command(&gpg);
-
- unlink_or_warn(path);
-
- return ret;
+ return verify_signed_buffer(buf, size, len);
}
static int verify_tag(const char *name, int verbose)
diff --git a/gpg-interface.c b/gpg-interface.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b83cca1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gpg-interface.c
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2011, Google Inc.
+ */
+#include "cache.h"
+#include "run-command.h"
+#include "strbuf.h"
+#include "gpg-interface.h"
+#include "sigchain.h"
+
+int sign_buffer(struct strbuf *buffer, const char *signing_key)
+{
+ struct child_process gpg;
+ const char *args[4];
+ ssize_t len;
+ int i, j;
+
+ memset(&gpg, 0, sizeof(gpg));
+ gpg.argv = args;
+ gpg.in = -1;
+ gpg.out = -1;
+ args[0] = "gpg";
+ args[1] = "-bsau";
+ args[2] = signing_key;
+ args[3] = NULL;
+
+ if (start_command(&gpg))
+ return error(_("could not run gpg."));
+
+ /*
+ * When the username signingkey is bad, program could be terminated
+ * because gpg exits without reading and then write gets SIGPIPE.
+ */
+ sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
+
+ if (write_in_full(gpg.in, buffer->buf, buffer->len) != buffer->len) {
+ close(gpg.in);
+ close(gpg.out);
+ finish_command(&gpg);
+ return error(_("gpg did not accept the data"));
+ }
+ close(gpg.in);
+ len = strbuf_read(buffer, gpg.out, 1024);
+ close(gpg.out);
+
+ sigchain_pop(SIGPIPE);
+
+ if (finish_command(&gpg) || !len || len < 0)
+ return error(_("gpg failed to sign the data"));
+
+ /* Strip CR from the line endings, in case we are on Windows. */
+ for (i = j = 0; i < buffer->len; i++)
+ if (buffer->buf[i] != '\r') {
+ if (i != j)
+ buffer->buf[j] = buffer->buf[i];
+ j++;
+ }
+ strbuf_setlen(buffer, j);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int verify_signed_buffer(const char *buf, size_t total, size_t payload)
+{
+ struct child_process gpg;
+ const char *args_gpg[] = {"gpg", "--verify", "FILE", "-", NULL};
+ char path[PATH_MAX];
+ int fd, ret;
+
+ fd = git_mkstemp(path, PATH_MAX, ".git_vtag_tmpXXXXXX");
+ if (fd < 0)
+ return error("could not create temporary file '%s': %s",
+ path, strerror(errno));
+ if (write_in_full(fd, buf, total) < 0)
+ return error("failed writing temporary file '%s': %s",
+ path, strerror(errno));
+ close(fd);
+
+ memset(&gpg, 0, sizeof(gpg));
+ gpg.argv = args_gpg;
+ gpg.in = -1;
+ args_gpg[2] = path;
+ if (start_command(&gpg)) {
+ unlink(path);
+ return error("could not run gpg.");
+ }
+
+ write_in_full(gpg.in, buf, payload);
+ close(gpg.in);
+ ret = finish_command(&gpg);
+
+ unlink_or_warn(path);
+
+ return ret;
+}
diff --git a/gpg-interface.h b/gpg-interface.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7689357
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gpg-interface.h
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+#ifndef GPG_INTERFACE_H
+#define GPG_INTERFACE_H
+
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2011, Google Inc.
+ */
+
+extern int sign_buffer(struct strbuf *buffer, const char *signing_key);
+extern int verify_signed_buffer(const char *buffer, size_t total, size_t payload);
+
+#endif
--
1.7.7.rc0.188.g3793ac
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] remote: write correct fetch spec when renaming remote 'remote'
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-08 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin von Zweigbergk; +Cc: git, Jeff King
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109062136350.12564@debian>
Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> writes:
> same pattern both when updating refspecs and when renaming refs. Of
> course, we can never be certain that a ref "refs/remotes/origin/foo"
> is really related to the remote called "origin". The user could have
> simply created the ref manually. Is that what you are getting at?
You have two separate and independent code that are not linked together
but should logically be.
One updates fetch refspec whose RHS is "refs/remotes/$OLD/<anything>" to
"refs/remotes/$NEW/<the same thing>". If you do not find any such fetch
refspec, then you do not update these configuration variables, which is
good.
Later in the same mv() function, the other one renames refs/remotes/$OLD/
to refs/remotes/$NEW/, even when you did not find any fetch refspec that
stores under "refs/remotes/$OLD/<anything>" in the earlier logic.
Now, these actual refs may have been placed manually by the user. They may
have been placed by an old config that the user may have edited. You
simply do not know.
But you know one thing. You _do_ know is that these refs did _not_ come
from any "[remote "$OLD"] fetch = ..." configuration, and by inference, it
will not come from any "[remote "$NEW"] fetch = ...", in other words, they
do not have any relation with the "$NEW" remote. So I do not see a good
reason to move them from refs/remotes/$OLD/ to refs/remotes/$NEW/. That
was what I was pointing out.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Pushing with --mirror over HTTP?
From: Eli Barzilay @ 2011-09-08 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20110907213950.GI13364@sigill.intra.peff.net>
5 hours ago, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:37AM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> > Is there anything broken with pushing with mirror over HTTP? I'm
> > trying that with a github url, and I get a broken-looking error
> > message:
> >
> > remote part of refspec is not a valid name in :.have
>
> It's probably nothing to do with http, but rather with alternate
> object databases on the server (which GitHub uses heavily). The
> server hands out fake ".have" refs telling you it has some other
> branch tips to base packs off of. So I suspect the "push --mirror"
> code is simply wrong for trying to update those refs (it may be
> exacerbated by using http, though, as the remote helper code seems
> to have some extra checks).
Ah -- I thought that this was some result of parsing some text message
or something like that, maybe if the error was
remote part of refspec is not a valid name in ":.have"
or even
remote part of refspec is not a valid name in: :.have
it would have been clearer? Seems like it's a good place for this
since some `:foo' is likely to appear there, and the colon can be
confused as part of the text.
Also, maybe the man page should say something about `--mirror' not
working well with such servers? It looks to me like mirroring to
github and to google code would be pretty popular.
> > and with the google code, I get:
> >
> > error: unable to push to unqualified destination: HEAD
> >
> > Pushing to both of these work fine without `--mirror'.
>
> This one, I'm not sure. It may be related.
>
> > (BTW, as a workaround, I'm using
> > push --force --tags <url> :
> > is this achieving the same effect for a repo without weird refs?)
>
> Not quite. I think:
>
> git push --force <url> refs/*:refs/*
>
> would be closer.
Thanks -- I'll use that instead.
> But even that's not quite right. I believe that "--mirror" will
> also delete any remote refs that don't exist locally (which is why
> you are seeing the ":.have" refspec above, which attempts to delete
> it).
Is there some way of doing that? (We do use a branch during releases
that is deleted after the release, so I need to propagate these
deletions.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2] date.c: Support iso8601 timezone formats
From: Haitao Li @ 2011-09-08 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Jeff King
In-Reply-To: <7vaaag4794.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
>> + } else {
>> + /* Only hours specified */
>
> That comment belongs to inside the following if() {...}.
>
>> + if (n == 1 || n == 2) {
>
> ... i.e. here.
>
Good catch!
>> - if (min < 60 && n > 2) {
>> + if (n > 0 && min < 60 && hour < 25) {
>
> What is this "hour < 25" about? Aren't we talking about the UTC offset
> value that come after the [-+] sign?
>
> I do not mind adding a new check, but I do mind if it adds a check with
> not much value. Even at Pacific/Kiritimati, the offset is 14; the new
> check seems a bit too lenient.
>
I think it's not "too" lenient. UTC+14 was "invented" in 1995 [1].
Maybe UTC+15 would be added someday for some reason? How about
changing to "hour < 24", this is how ICU checks offset validity [2].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC%2B14#History
2. http://bugs.icu-project.org/trac/browser/icu/tags/release-4-8-1/source/i18n/timezone.cpp#L1482
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] sha1_file: normalize alt_odb path before comparing and storing
From: wanghui @ 2011-09-08 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, tali
In-Reply-To: <7vk49k2nsz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Wang Hui <Hui.Wang@windriver.com> writes:
>
>
>> From: Hui Wang <Hui.Wang@windriver.com>
>>
>> When it needs to compare and add an alt object path to the
>> alt_odb_list, we normalize this path first since comparing normalized
>> path is easy to get correct result.
>>
>> Use strbuf to replace some string operations, since it is cleaner and
>> safer.
>>
>
> Thanks, will queue.
>
>
>> diff --git a/sha1_file.c b/sha1_file.c
>> index f7c3408..fa2484b 100644
>> --- a/sha1_file.c
>> +++ b/sha1_file.c
>> @@ -248,27 +248,27 @@ static int link_alt_odb_entry(const char * entry, int len, const char * relative
>> ...
>> + /* Drop the last '/' from path can make memcmp more accurate */
>> + if (pathbuf.buf[pfxlen-1] == '/')
>> + pfxlen -= 1;
>>
>
> By the way, I do not necessarily agree with the above comment. As long as
> you consistently strip the trailing slashes from all directory paths, or
> you consistently leave a single trailing slash after all directory paths,
> you can get accurate comparison either way.
>
> Side note: I tend to prefer keeping a single trailing slash when I
> know what we are talking about is a directory in general, because
> you do not have to worry about the corner case near the root.
> Compare ('/' and '/bin/') vs ('/' and '/bin').
>
> In this particular case, the real reason you want to remove the trailing
> slash is that the invariants of ent->base[] demands it (after all, it
> places another slash immediately after it), and making pathbuf.buf[] an
> empty string (i.e. pfxlen == 0) would still be OK to represent an
> alternate object store at the root level (this function assigns '/' at
> ent->base[pfxlen] immediately before returning, and that '/' names the
> root directory).
>
>
Yes, your concern is right, I didn't even think about root directory
situation. If the pathbuf.buf is really '/', stripping last slash will
make pathbuf.buf a empty string, this will make is_directory() return
false, this is a bug, how about replace those three line codes to:
/* Except root dir, all paths are stripped the last slash if they have */
if (pathbuf.buf[pfxlen-1] == '/' && pxflen != 1)
pxflen -= 1;
>> + entlen = pfxlen + 43; /* '/' + 2 hex + '/' + 38 hex + NUL */
>> + ent = xmalloc(sizeof(*ent) + entlen);
>> + memcpy(ent->base, pathbuf.buf, pfxlen);
>> + strbuf_release(&pathbuf);
>>
>> ent->name = ent->base + pfxlen + 1;
>> ent->base[pfxlen + 3] = '/';
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] remote: write correct fetch spec when renaming remote 'remote'
From: Martin von Zweigbergk @ 2011-09-08 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Martin von Zweigbergk, git, Jeff King
In-Reply-To: <7vaaah6zx0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> It is somewhat bothering that we do not say "we didn't do any magic" here
> when we did not move the tracking branch specifications, but that is not a
> new problem, so I am OK with this change.
If I understand you correctly, this is the same concern that Jeff had
and that I tried to address in patch 3/2.
> I however suspect that you would want to keep the record of what you
> changed here, so that the renaming of actual refs done in [PATCH 2/2] is
> limited to those that you updated the specifications for, no?
Sorry, I don't think I really understand. Are you worried that we
might rename too many refs, i.e. unrelated ones? We match exactly the
same pattern both when updating refspecs and when renaming refs. Of
course, we can never be certain that a ref "refs/remotes/origin/foo"
is really related to the remote called "origin". The user could have
simply created the ref manually. Is that what you are getting at?
Martin
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v17 1/7] bisect: move argument parsing before state modification.
From: Jon Seymour @ 2011-09-08 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Sixt; +Cc: Christian Couder, git, gitster, jnareb, jrnieder
In-Reply-To: <4E67B2F2.9070806@kdbg.org>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
> Am 07.09.2011 08:16, schrieb Christian Couder:
> IOW, I think the new behavior is *much* better than the old behavior.
>
There is perhaps no surprise that I agree with Hannes. Certainly, it
seemed saner to me to do argument validation before state update. [
Also, the earlier iterations of the --no-checkout series needed the
new behaviour. Not sure if that is still true, but I suspect it is ].
jon.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] push -s: skeleton
From: Robin H. Johnson @ 2011-09-07 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git Mailing List; +Cc: Shawn O. Pearce
In-Reply-To: <7vbouw2hqg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2111 bytes --]
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:57:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If a tag is GPG-signed, and if you trust the cryptographic robustness of
> the SHA-1 and GPG, you can guarantee that all the history leading to the
> signed commit is not tampered with. However, it would be both cumbersome
> and cluttering to sign each and every commit. Especially if you strive to
> keep your history clean by tweaking, rewriting and polishing your commits
> before pushing the resulting history out, many commits you will create
> locally end up not mattering at all, and it is a waste of time to sign
> them.
Thanks to pcloud for including me on the thread. I do find the idea of
these push-certificates very interesting and useful, but I think they
will do best to augment signed commits, not replace them.
There's a couple of related things we've been considering on the Gentoo
side:
- detached signatures of blobs (either the SHA1 of the blob or the blob
itself)
- The signature covering the message+blob details, but NOT the chain of
history: this opens up the ability to cherry-pick and rebase iff there
are no conflicts and the blobs are identical, all while preserving the
signature.
- concerns about a pre-image attack against Git. tl;dr version:
1. Attacker prepares decoy file in advance, that hashes to the same as
the malicious file.
2. Attacker sends decoy in as an innocuous real commit.
3. Months later, the attacker breaks into the system and alters the
packfile to include the new malicious file.
4. All new clones from that point forward get the malicious version.
Re your comment on always needing to resign commits above, we'd been
considering post-signing commits, not when they are initially made.
After your commit is clean and ready to ship, you can fire the commit
ids into the signature tool, which can generate a detached signature
note for each commit.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 330 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: The imporantance of including http credential caching in 1.7.7
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-07 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Kyle Neath, Michael J Gruber, git
In-Reply-To: <33309DB6F935472497D9790A26046452@PhilipOakley>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
> Would it not be possible for GitHub to provide for those key users such
> a trial version that includes the patches identified to obtain the
> "real-world success reports" that are needed, as mentioned in the "Re:
> What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2011, #07; Wed, 24)"
>
> This should help satisfy the needs from both sides, even if you can
> only push it to a few clients.
That would not help very much, as (1) we know what Jeff included as sample
keystores are more or less cooked and good, but (2) nobody in your style
of trial will come up with different keystore to exercise the API to make
sure that will not paint us into a corner we cannot upgrade without major
pain in the backward compatibility area. The "real-world success reports"
you can generate would only for (1) but at this point we are not worried
about that. We are more (much more) worried about (2).
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] RelNotes/1.7.7: minor fixes
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-09-07 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael J Gruber; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <61f2b23c1717455d9b2088b1b8f3350756d757e0.1315396440.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Thanks, I obviously kant speel.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] push -s: skeleton
From: Shawn Pearce @ 2011-09-07 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <7vpqjc0zaf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:21, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>
>> Yes. Above we flushed the req_buf and send that in an HTTP request.
>> You need to hoist this block above the "if (args->stateless_rpc)"
>> segment.
>
> What do you mean by "hoist"? For the req advertisement, it seems that you
> are not hoisting anything but duplicating the code, turning safe_write()
> followed by flush into packet-buf-flush and sending the result over the
> sideband. Shouldn't this new data be sent over the sideband-to-http the
> same way?
>
> Unless you do not want signed push over http, that is...
We do.
> diff --git a/builtin/send-pack.c b/builtin/send-pack.c
> index 3193f34..37e0313 100644
> --- a/builtin/send-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/send-pack.c
> @@ -379,9 +379,13 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
> packet_buf_write(&req_buf, "%.*s",
> (int)(ep - cp), cp);
> }
> - /* Do we need anything funky for stateless rpc? */
> - safe_write(out, req_buf.buf, req_buf.len);
> - packet_flush(out);
> + if (args->stateless_rpc) {
> + packet_buf_flush(&req_buf);
> + send_sideband(out, -1, req_buf.buf, req_buf.len, LARGE_PACKET_MAX);
> + } else {
> + safe_write(out, req_buf.buf, req_buf.len);
> + packet_flush(out);
> + }
This sounds too late to me. I think you just caused 2 HTTP POSTs, one
a partial one with the commands and no pack data, and another with the
push certificate and the pack. Neither is useful.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: The imporantance of including http credential caching in 1.7.7
From: Philip Oakley @ 2011-09-07 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle Neath, Michael J Gruber; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAFcyEthuf49_kOmoLmoSSbNJN+iOBpicP4-eFAV5wL5_RffwGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kyle Neath" <kneath@gmail.com>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> If this were a new, insignificant, and obscure feature in a piece of
>> software with mere 20k users, it may be OK to release a new version with
>> the feature in an uncooked shape.
>
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> So, it's been a year or more that you've been aware of the importance of
>> this issue (from your/github's perspective), and we hear about it now,
>> at the end of the rc phase.
>
> I apologize if it sounds like that. I've been discussing this situation
> with
> many people (including Jeff King) for a very long time now, and it was my
> understanding that the credential caching was done and simply waiting for
> a
> new release. This is the first I've heard that it will not be included in
> 1.7.7, so I'm voicing my opinion now. Admittedly, late in the game - and I
> apologize for that.
>
> I'd be happy to help in any capacity I can. Unfortunately I'm no C hacker,
> and
> I've accepted that as a character flaw (it's something I'm working on).
> I'm
> afraid I can't be of much help with the actual code. What I can provide is
> an
> alternate viewpoint to the core team. A viewpoint of someone who's spent 3
> years trying to make git easier for newcomers.
Help in any capacity :
Would it not be possible for GitHub to provide for those key users such a
trial version
that includes the patches identified to obtain the "real-world success
reports" that
are needed, as mentioned in the "Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2011,
#07; Wed, 24)"
This should help satisfy the needs from both sides, even if you can only
push it to a few clients.
>>What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2011, #07; Wed, 24)
>> Looked mostly reasonable except for the limitation that it is not clear
>> how to deal with a site at which a user needs to use different passwords
>> for different repositories. Will keep it in "next" at least for one
>> cycle,
>> until we start hearing real-world success reports on the list.
^ 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