* Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2012-11-09 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: W. Trevor King, Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce,
Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <7v390jqlep.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 11:34:54PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
>
> > By remaining agnostic on the variable usage, this patch makes
> > submodule setup more convenient for all parties.
>
> I personally do not think "remaining agnostic on the usage" is a
> good thing, at least for any option to commands at the higher level
> on the stack, such as "git submodule". I am afraid that giving an
> easier way to set up a variable with undefined semantics may make
> setup more confusing for all parties. One party gives one specific
> meaning to the field, while another party uses it for something
> slightly different.
>
> I would not object to "git config submodule.$name.branch $value", on
> the other hand. "git config" can be used to set a piece of data
> that has specific meaning, but as a low-level tool, it is not
> _limited_ to variables that have defined meaning.
I think we should agree on a behavior for this option and implement it
the same time when add learns about it. When we were discussing floating
submodules as an important option for the gerrit people I already started
to implement a proof of concept. Please have a look here:
https://github.com/hvoigt/git/commits/hv/floating_submodules
AFAIK this does not yet implement the same behaviour the gerrit tools
offer for this option. The main reason behind that was because I do not
know the typical workflow behind such an option. So I am open to
changes.
Maybe you can use or base your work on this implementation for submodule
update.
Without submodule update using this option I think it would be better to
implement this option in the tool you are using instead of submodule add.
Everything else feels incomplete to me.
Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: bash completion of "addable" files for `git add`
From: Jeff King @ 2012-11-09 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Zeidler; +Cc: git, gitster
In-Reply-To: <5E69B894-C392-4DD5-A4F1-723DA1A3D059@zitc.de>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:22:27PM +0100, Andreas Zeidler wrote:
> so here's a patch adding bash completion on `git add` for modified,
> updated and untracked files. i've also set up a pull request — before
> i found `Documentation/SubmittingPatches`. fwiw, it's at
> https://github.com/git/git/pull/29
Please put cover letter material like this after the "---" divider, or
include a "-- >8 --" scissors line before your commit. Either helps "git
am" realize which content should go into the commit message.
> From cbac6caee7e788569562cb7138eb698cc46a1b8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Andreas Zeidler <az@zitc.de>
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:05:43 +0100
Please omit these lines, as they are redundant with your email header.
> Subject: [PATCH] add bash completion for "addable" files
This one is useful, but it would be even better if it were the subject
of your email. :)
> +__git_addable ()
> +{
> + local dir="$(__gitdir)"
> + if [ -d "$dir" ]; then
> + git --git-dir="$dir" status --short --untracked=all |\
> + egrep '^.[UM?] ' | sed 's/^.. //'
> + return
> + fi
> +}
You would want to use the stable, scriptable "--porcelain" output, so
the completion is not broken by future changes to the "--short" format.
However, I do not think using "git status" is the best option. It
computes three things:
1. The diff between HEAD and index.
2. The diff between index and working tree.
3. The list of untracked files.
But you only care about (2) and (3), so you are wasting time computing
(1). I think the list you want could be generated with:
git diff-files --name-only
git ls-files --exclude-standard -o
and then you do not need to worry about grep or sed at all.
> @@ -810,6 +820,11 @@ _git_add ()
> --ignore-errors --intent-to-add
> "
> return
> + ;;
> + *)
> + __gitcomp "$(__git_addable)"
> + return
> + ;;
I think you'd want to use __gitcomp_nl to handle filenames with spaces.
Speaking of which, the output of status (or of the commands I mentioned)
may have quoting applied to pathnames. I think that is not something we
handle very well right now in the completion, so it may not be worth
worrying about for this particular patch.
Other than those comments, I think the intent of your patch makes a lot
of sense.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git merge commits are non-deterministic? what changed?
From: Jeff King @ 2012-11-09 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthieu Moy; +Cc: Ulrich Spörlein, Andreas Schwab, git
In-Reply-To: <vpq390idb8v.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:52:48PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> writes:
>
> >> > 2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the
> >> > parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before
> >> > calculating the hash ...
> >>
> >> What would be the sort key?
> >
> > Trivially, the hash of the parents itself. So you'd always get
> >
> > ...
> > parent 0000
> > parent 1111
> > parent aaaa
> > parent ffff
>
> That would change the behavior of --first-parent. Or you'd need to
> compute the sha1 of the sorted list, but keep the unsorted one in the
> commit. Possible, but weird ;-).
Right. The reason that merge parents are stored in the order given on
the command line is not random or because it was not considered. It
encodes a valuable piece of information: did the user merge "foo" into
"bar", or did they merge "bar" into "foo"?
So I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction; git should
never sort the parents, because the order is meaningful. The original
complaint was that a run of svn2git produced different results on two
different git versions. The important question to me is: did svn2git
feed the parents to git in the same order?
If it did, and git produced different results, then that is a serious
bug.
If it did not, then the issue needs to be resolved in svn2git (which
_may_ want to sort the parents that it feeds to git, but it would depend
on whether the order it is currently presenting is meaningful).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Rename edge case...
From: Jeff King @ 2012-11-09 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Szakmeister; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5U+OSTCAqgWoApE_m21Nef24Wqvt78oB6qqV4oEvU0vXQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:10:31AM -0500, John Szakmeister wrote:
> I've been browsing StackOverflow answering git-related questions, and
> ran across this one:
> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13300675/git-merge-rename-conflict>
>
> It's a bit of an interesting situation. The user did a couple of
> renames in a branch:
> foo.txt => fooOld.txt
> fooNew.txt => foo.txt
>
> Meanwhile, master had an update to fooNew.txt. When the user tried to
> merge master to the branch, it gave a merge conflict saying fooNew.txt
> was deleted, but master tried to update it.
>
> I was a bit surprised that git didn't follow the rename here, though I
> do understand why: git only sees it as a rename if the source
> disappears completely.
Right. If the source didn't go away, it would be a copy. We can do copy
detection, but it is not quite as obvious what a merge should do with a
copy (apply the change to the original? To the copy? In both places? You
would really want hunk-level copy detection for it to make any sense).
Usually git deals with this double-rename case through the use of
"break" or "rewrite" detection. We notice that the old "foo.txt" and the
new "foo.txt" do not look very much like each other, and break the
modification apart into an add and a delete. That makes each side
eligible for rename detection, and we can end up finding the pairs of
renames above.
So in theory it just as simple as a one-liner to turn on break-detection
in merge-recursive. Sadly, that only reveals more issues with how
merge-recursive handles renames. See this thread, which has pointers to
the breakages at the end:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/169944
I've become convinced that the best way forward with merge-recursive is
to scrap and rewrite it. It tries to do things in a muddled order, which
makes it very brittle to changes like this. I think it needs to have an
internal representation of the tree that can represent all of the
conflicts, and then follow a few simple phases:
1. "structural" 3-way merge handling renames, breaks, typechanges,
etc. Each path in tree might show things like D/F conflicts, or it
might show content-level merges that still need to happen, even if
the content from those merges is not coming from the same paths in
the source trees.
2. Resolve content-level 3-way merges at each path.
3. Compare the proposed tree to the working tree and list any problems
(e.g., untracked files or local modifications that will be
overwritten).
Right now it tries to do these things interleaved as it processes paths,
and as a result we've had many bugs (e.g., the content-level merge
conflating the content originally at a path and something that was
renamed into place, and missing corner cases where we actually overwrite
untracked files that should be considered precious).
But that is just off the top of my head. I haven't looked at the topic
in quite a while (and I haven't even started working on any such
rewrite).
> So I played locally with a few ideas, and was surprised to find out
> that even breaking up the two renames into two separate commits git
> still didn't follow it.
Right, because the merge only looks at the end points. Try doing a
"diff -M" between your endpoints with and without "-B". We do not have
any double-renames in git.git, but you can find "-B" helping a similar
case: most of a file's content is moved elsewhere, but some small amount
remains. For example, try this in git.git, with and without -B:
git show -M --stat --summary --patch 043a449
It finds the rename only with "-B", which would help a merge (it also
makes the diff shorter and more readable, as you can see what was
changed as the content migrated to the new file).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git merge commits are non-deterministic? what changed?
From: Matthieu Moy @ 2012-11-09 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Spörlein; +Cc: Andreas Schwab, git
In-Reply-To: <20121109154245.GP69724@acme.spoerlein.net>
Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> writes:
>> > 2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the
>> > parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before
>> > calculating the hash ...
>>
>> What would be the sort key?
>
> Trivially, the hash of the parents itself. So you'd always get
>
> ...
> parent 0000
> parent 1111
> parent aaaa
> parent ffff
That would change the behavior of --first-parent. Or you'd need to
compute the sha1 of the sorted list, but keep the unsorted one in the
commit. Possible, but weird ;-).
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git merge commits are non-deterministic? what changed?
From: Ulrich Spörlein @ 2012-11-09 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <m2y5iarf5s.fsf@igel.home>
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 16:04:31 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> writes:
>
> > Two questions:
> > 1. Can we impose a stable ordering of the commits being recorded in a
> > merge commit? Listing parents in chronological order or something like
> > that.
>
> The order is determined by the order the refs are given to git merge (or
> git commit-tree when using the plumbing).
>
> > 2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the
> > parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before
> > calculating the hash ...
>
> What would be the sort key?
Trivially, the hash of the parents itself. So you'd always get
...
parent 0000
parent 1111
parent aaaa
parent ffff
hth
Uli
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git merge commits are non-deterministic? what changed?
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2012-11-09 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Spörlein; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121109133132.GK69724@acme.spoerlein.net>
Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@spoerlein.net> writes:
> Two questions:
> 1. Can we impose a stable ordering of the commits being recorded in a
> merge commit? Listing parents in chronological order or something like
> that.
The order is determined by the order the refs are given to git merge (or
git commit-tree when using the plumbing).
> 2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the
> parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before
> calculating the hash ...
What would be the sort key?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RFD: fast-import is picky with author names (and maybe it should - but how much so?)
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-09 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael J Gruber; +Cc: Jeff King, Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <509CCCBC.8010102@drmicha.warpmail.net>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> Hg seems to store just anything in the author field ("committer"). The
> various interfaces that are floating around do some behind-the-back
> conversion to git format. The more conversions they do, the better they
> seem to work (no erroring out) but I'm wondering whether it's really a
> good thing, or whether we should encourage a more diligent approach
> which requires a user to map non-conforming author names wilfully.
So you propose that when somebody does 'git clone hg::hg hg-git' the
thing should fail. I hope you don't think it's too unbecoming for me
to say that I disagree.
IMO it should be git fast-import the one that converts these bad
authors, not every single tool out there. Maybe throw a warning, but
that's all. Or maybe generate a list of bad authors ready to be filled
out. That way when a project is doing a real conversion, say, when
moving to git, they can run the conversion once and see which authors
are bad and not multiple times, each try taking longer than the next.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Revert option for git add --patch
From: Bogolisk @ 2012-11-09 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <EE89F0A1-1C07-4597-B654-035F657AD09F@me.com>
Jonathon Mah <jmah <at> me.com> writes:
>
> Nathan,
>
> I find myself performing similar actions to you: using git add -p to stage
hunks, sometimes editing the
> staged patch; and keeping mental notes of things I wanted to revert, sometimes
changing them in the editor
> in another window, and sometimes reverting them after the add session with git
checkout -p).
Other front-ends like Egg and Magit has been providing the ability to move hunks
back and forth, for a long time.
^ permalink raw reply
* git merge commits are non-deterministic? what changed?
From: Ulrich Spörlein @ 2012-11-09 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi all,
I'm running a couple of conversions from SVN to git, using a slightly
hacked version of svn2git (because it can cope with multiple branches
and is several orders of magnitude faster than git-svn).
Anyway, when doing some verification runs, using the same version of
svn2git, but different versions of git, I get different commit hashes,
and I tracked it down to the ordering of the parents inside a merge
commit.
version 1.7.9.2
% git show --format=raw e209a83|head
commit e209a83c1e0a387c88a44f3a8f2be2670ed85eae
tree de2d7c6726a45428d4a310da2acd8839daf9f85f
parent 5fba0401c23a594e4ad5e807bf14a5439645a358
parent 25062ba061871945759b3baa833fe64969383e40
parent 89bebeef185ed08424fc548f8569081c6add2439
parent c7d5f60d3a7e2e3c4da23b157c62504667344438
parent e7bc108f0d6a394050818a4af64a59094d3c793e
parent 48231afadc40013e6bfda56b04a11ee3a602598f
author rgrimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> 739897097 +0000
committer rgrimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> 739897097 +0000
vs
git version 1.8.0
% git show --format=raw 42f0fad|head
commit 42f0fadccab6eefc7ffdc1012345b42ad45e36c2
tree de2d7c6726a45428d4a310da2acd8839daf9f85f
parent 5fba0401c23a594e4ad5e807bf14a5439645a358
parent 25062ba061871945759b3baa833fe64969383e40
parent 89bebeef185ed08424fc548f8569081c6add2439
parent 48231afadc40013e6bfda56b04a11ee3a602598f
parent c7d5f60d3a7e2e3c4da23b157c62504667344438
parent e7bc108f0d6a394050818a4af64a59094d3c793e
author rgrimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> 739897097 +0000
committer rgrimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> 739897097 +0000
I haven't verified to see if that ordering is stable within a git
version, but the fact that it changed across versions clearly means that
I cannot depend on this currently (I have never seen this problem in two
years, so I blame git 1.8.0 ...)
Two questions:
1. Can we impose a stable ordering of the commits being recorded in a
merge commit? Listing parents in chronological order or something like
that.
2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the
parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before
calculating the hash ...
Help?
Uli
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git svn problem, probably a regression
From: Joseph Crowell @ 2012-11-09 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <20121108180657.GM15560@sigill.intra.peff.net>
> > Use of uninitialized value $u in substitution (s///) at
/usr/local/Cellar/git/1.8.0/lib/Git/SVN.pm
> line 106.
> > Use of uninitialized value $u in concatenation (.) or string at
> /usr/local/Cellar/git/1.8.0/lib/Git/SVN.pm line 106.
> > refs/remotes/svn/asset-manager-redesign: 'svn+ssh://<IP address>' not found
in ''
>
> If you have time and can reproduce the bug at will, it would be very
> helpful to use "git-bisect" to pinpoint the exact commit that causes the
> breakage.
>
> -Peff
>
I just encountered the exact same issue while converting an svn repo to git on
Windows through Git Bash. Same error.
^ permalink raw reply
* bash completion of "addable" files for `git add`
From: Andreas Zeidler @ 2012-11-09 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: gitster
hi,
i've always been annoyed by having to type — or copy & paste — paths when i wanted to simply add some files to the index. i know about the `add -i` interface, and that improves things a little, but having bash completion for so many other things it still seemed to much hassle.
so here's a patch adding bash completion on `git add` for modified, updated and untracked files. i've also set up a pull request — before i found `Documentation/SubmittingPatches`. fwiw, it's at https://github.com/git/git/pull/29
best regards,
andi
From cbac6caee7e788569562cb7138eb698cc46a1b8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Zeidler <az@zitc.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:05:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] add bash completion for "addable" files
this adds support for completing only modified, updated and untracked
files on `git add`, since almost always these are what you want to add
to the index.
the list of possible completions is determined using `git status` and
filtered using `egrep` and `sed`.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Zeidler <az@zitc.de>
---
contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 15 +++++++++++++++
t/t9902-completion.sh | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
index be800e0..4aa0981 100644
--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
@@ -799,6 +799,16 @@ _git_apply ()
COMPREPLY=()
}
+__git_addable ()
+{
+ local dir="$(__gitdir)"
+ if [ -d "$dir" ]; then
+ git --git-dir="$dir" status --short --untracked=all |\
+ egrep '^.[UM?] ' | sed 's/^.. //'
+ return
+ fi
+}
+
_git_add ()
{
__git_has_doubledash && return
@@ -810,6 +820,11 @@ _git_add ()
--ignore-errors --intent-to-add
"
return
+ ;;
+ *)
+ __gitcomp "$(__git_addable)"
+ return
+ ;;
esac
COMPREPLY=()
}
diff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh
index cbd0fb6..a7c81d3 100755
--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh
+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh
@@ -288,4 +288,15 @@ test_expect_failure 'complete tree filename with metacharacters' '
EOF
'
+test_expect_success 'add completes untracked and modified names' '
+ echo other content >file1 &&
+ echo content >file2 &&
+ echo more >file3 &&
+ git add file1 &&
+ test_completion_long "git add f" <<-\EOF
+ file2_
+ file3_
+ EOF
+'
+
test_done
--
1.8.0.1.g43af610
--
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
upgrade to plone 4! -- http://plone.org/4
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Rename edge case...
From: Johannes Sixt @ 2012-11-09 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Szakmeister; +Cc: Tomas Carnecky, git
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5WeQEWdyaJuuNbnnQbbsLYv8NO1ZSj3eHHpjW+ToS9X1A@mail.gmail.com>
Am 11/9/2012 11:25, schrieb John Szakmeister:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Tomas Carnecky <tomas.carnecky@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> When merging two branches, git only looks at the tips. It doesn't inspect
>> their histories to see how the files were moved around. So i doesn't matter
>> whether you rename the files in a single commit or multiple commits. The
>> resulting tree is always the same.
>
> I guess I figured that when I saw the final result, but didn't know if
> there was a way to coax Git into doing a better job here.
If the renames are split in two commits, you can merge the first, and then
the second on top of the result.
-- Hannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: invalidate i-t-a paths after writing trees
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-09 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy; +Cc: git, Jeff King, Jonathon Mah
In-Reply-To: <1352459040-14452-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com>
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
> index 28ed657..30a8018 100644
> --- a/cache-tree.c
> +++ b/cache-tree.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,9 @@ int cache_tree_update(struct cache_tree *it,
> i = update_one(it, cache, entries, "", 0, flags);
> if (i < 0)
> return i;
> + for (i = 0; i < entries; i++)
> + if (cache[i]->ce_flags & CE_INTENT_TO_ADD)
> + cache_tree_invalidate_path(it, cache[i]->name);
> return 0;
> }
I notice there is another special case for CE_REMOVE but there is
nothing that adjusts the cache-tree for these entries in the current
codebase.
I suspect the original code before we (perhaps incorrectly) updated
the code not to error out upon I-T-A entries was fine only because
we do not attempt to fully populate the cache-tree during a merge in
the unpack-trees codepath, which will mark the index entries that
are to be removed with CE_REMOVE in the resulting index.
The solution implemented with this patch will break if we start
updating the cache tree after a successful merge in unpack-trees, I
suspect.
An alternative might be to add a "phoney" bit next to "used" in the
cache_tree structure, mark the cache tree as phoney when we skip an
entry marked as CE_REMOVE or CE_ITA, and make the postprocessing
loop this patch adds aware of that bit, instead of iterating over
the index entries; instead, it would recurse the resulting cache
tree and invalidate parts of the tree that have subtrees with the
"phoney" bit set, or something.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] cache-tree: invalidate i-t-a paths after writing trees
From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy @ 2012-11-09 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jeff King, Jonathon Mah,
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
In-Reply-To: <3E62F933-76CD-4578-8684-21444EAA454F@JonathonMah.com>
Intent-to-add entries used to forbid writing trees so it was not a
problem. After commit 3f6d56d (commit: ignore intent-to-add entries
instead of refusing - 2012-02-07), an index with i-t-a entries can
write trees. However, the commit forgets to invalidate all paths
leading to i-t-a entries. With fully valid cache-tree (e.g. after
commit or write-tree), diff operations may prefer cache-tree to index
and not see i-t-a entries in the index, because cache-tree does not
have them.
The invalidation is done after calling update_one() in
cache_tree_update() for simplicity because it's probably not worth the
complexity of changing a recursive function and the performance
bottleneck won't likely fall to this new loop, rather in
write_sha1_file or hash_sha1_file. But this means that if update_one()
has new call sites, they must re-do the same what this commit does to
avoid the same fault.
Reported-by: Jonathon Mah <me@JonathonMah.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
---
cache-tree.c | 3 +++
t/t2203-add-intent.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git a/cache-tree.c b/cache-tree.c
index 28ed657..30a8018 100644
--- a/cache-tree.c
+++ b/cache-tree.c
@@ -381,6 +381,9 @@ int cache_tree_update(struct cache_tree *it,
i = update_one(it, cache, entries, "", 0, flags);
if (i < 0)
return i;
+ for (i = 0; i < entries; i++)
+ if (cache[i]->ce_flags & CE_INTENT_TO_ADD)
+ cache_tree_invalidate_path(it, cache[i]->name);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/t/t2203-add-intent.sh b/t/t2203-add-intent.sh
index ec35409..2a4a749 100755
--- a/t/t2203-add-intent.sh
+++ b/t/t2203-add-intent.sh
@@ -62,5 +62,25 @@ test_expect_success 'can "commit -a" with an i-t-a entry' '
git commit -a -m all
'
+test_expect_success 'cache-tree invalidates i-t-a paths' '
+ git reset --hard &&
+ mkdir dir &&
+ : >dir/foo &&
+ git add dir/foo &&
+ git commit -m foo &&
+
+ : >dir/bar &&
+ git add -N dir/bar &&
+ git diff --cached --name-only >actual &&
+ echo dir/bar >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ git write-tree >/dev/null &&
+
+ git diff --cached --name-only >actual &&
+ echo dir/bar >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+'
+
test_done
--
1.8.0.rc2.23.g1fb49df
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Rename edge case...
From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy @ 2012-11-09 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Szakmeister; +Cc: Tomas Carnecky, git
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5WeQEWdyaJuuNbnnQbbsLYv8NO1ZSj3eHHpjW+ToS9X1A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:25 PM, John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Tomas Carnecky <tomas.carnecky@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> When merging two branches, git only looks at the tips. It doesn't inspect
>> their histories to see how the files were moved around. So i doesn't matter
>> whether you rename the files in a single commit or multiple commits. The
>> resulting tree is always the same.
>
> I guess I figured that when I saw the final result, but didn't know if
> there was a way to coax Git into doing a better job here. I guess not
> though.
There is not (yet). There were a few patches around that allow users
to override git's automatic renames. You can search the mail archive.
I think the keywords are "rename cache". Thanks for reminding me for
putting a higher priority on that.
--
Duy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Rename edge case...
From: John Szakmeister @ 2012-11-09 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomas Carnecky; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1352453243-ner-1164@calvin>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Tomas Carnecky <tomas.carnecky@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> When merging two branches, git only looks at the tips. It doesn't inspect
> their histories to see how the files were moved around. So i doesn't matter
> whether you rename the files in a single commit or multiple commits. The
> resulting tree is always the same.
I guess I figured that when I saw the final result, but didn't know if
there was a way to coax Git into doing a better job here. I guess not
though. At least it's a situation that doesn't come up often.
-John
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Rename edge case...
From: Tomas Carnecky @ 2012-11-09 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Szakmeister, git
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5U+OSTCAqgWoApE_m21Nef24Wqvt78oB6qqV4oEvU0vXQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 04:10:31 -0500, John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> wrote:
> I've been browsing StackOverflow answering git-related questions, and
> ran across this one:
> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13300675/git-merge-rename-conflict>
>
> It's a bit of an interesting situation. The user did a couple of
> renames in a branch:
> foo.txt => fooOld.txt
> fooNew.txt => foo.txt
>
> Meanwhile, master had an update to fooNew.txt. When the user tried to
> merge master to the branch, it gave a merge conflict saying fooNew.txt
> was deleted, but master tried to update it.
>
> I was a bit surprised that git didn't follow the rename here, though I
> do understand why: git only sees it as a rename if the source
> disappears completely. So I played locally with a few ideas, and was
> surprised to find out that even breaking up the two renames into two
> separate commits git still didn't follow it.
>
> I'm just curious--I don't run into this often myself--but is there a
> good strategy for dealing with this that avoids the conflict?
When merging two branches, git only looks at the tips. It doesn't inspect
their histories to see how the files were moved around. So i doesn't matter
whether you rename the files in a single commit or multiple commits. The
resulting tree is always the same.
tom
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RFD: fast-import is picky with author names (and maybe it should - but how much so?)
From: Michael J Gruber @ 2012-11-09 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: Git Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <20121108200919.GP15560@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 08.11.2012 21:09:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:43:24PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> It seems that our fast-import is super picky with regards to author
>> names. I've encountered author names like
>>
>> Foo Bar<foo.bar@dev.null>
>> Foo Bar <foo.bar@dev.null
>> foo.bar@dev.null
>>
>> in the self-hosting repo of some other dvcs, and the question is how to
>> translate them faithfully into a git author name.
>
> It is not just fast-import. Git's author field looks like an rfc822
> address, but it's much simpler. It fundamentally does not allow angle
> brackets in the "name" field, regardless of any quoting. As you noted in
> your followup, we strip them out if you provide them via
> GIT_AUTHOR_NAME.
>
> I doubt this will change anytime soon due to the compatibility fallout.
> So it is up to generators of fast-import streams to decide how to encode
> what they get from another system (you could come up with an encoding
> scheme that represents angle brackets).
I don't expect our requirements to change. For one thing, I was
surprised that git-commit is more tolerant than git-fast-import, but it
makes a lot of sense to avoid any behind-the-back conversions in the
importer.
>> In general, we try to do
>>
>> fullotherdvcsname <none@none>
>>
>> if the other system's entry does not parse as a git author name, but
>> fast-import does not accept either of
>>
>> Foo Bar<foo.bar@dev.null> <none@none>
>> "Foo Bar<foo.bar@dev.null>" <none@none>
>>
>> because of the way it parses for <>. While the above could be easily
>> turned into
>>
>> Foo Bar <foo.bar@dev.null>
>>
>> it would not be a faithful representation of the original commit in the
>> other dvcs.
>
> I'd think that if a remote system has names with angle brackets and
> email-looking things inside them, we would do better to stick them in
> the email field rather than putting in a useless <none@none>. The latter
> should only be used for systems that lack the information.
>
> But that is a quality-of-implementation issue for the import scripts
> (and they may even want to have options, just like git-cvsimport allows
> mapping cvs usernames into full identities).
That was more my real concern. In our cvs and svn interfaces, we even
encourage the use of author maps. For example, if you use an author map,
git-svn errors out if it encounters an svn user name which is not in the
map. On the other hand, we can map all (most?) svn user names faithfully
without using a map (e.g. to "username <none@none>").
Hg seems to store just anything in the author field ("committer"). The
various interfaces that are floating around do some behind-the-back
conversion to git format. The more conversions they do, the better they
seem to work (no erroring out) but I'm wondering whether it's really a
good thing, or whether we should encourage a more diligent approach
which requires a user to map non-conforming author names wilfully.
Michael
^ permalink raw reply
* Rename edge case...
From: John Szakmeister @ 2012-11-09 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
I've been browsing StackOverflow answering git-related questions, and
ran across this one:
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13300675/git-merge-rename-conflict>
It's a bit of an interesting situation. The user did a couple of
renames in a branch:
foo.txt => fooOld.txt
fooNew.txt => foo.txt
Meanwhile, master had an update to fooNew.txt. When the user tried to
merge master to the branch, it gave a merge conflict saying fooNew.txt
was deleted, but master tried to update it.
I was a bit surprised that git didn't follow the rename here, though I
do understand why: git only sees it as a rename if the source
disappears completely. So I played locally with a few ideas, and was
surprised to find out that even breaking up the two renames into two
separate commits git still didn't follow it.
I'm just curious--I don't run into this often myself--but is there a
good strategy for dealing with this that avoids the conflict?
Thanks!
-John
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-09 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: W. Trevor King
Cc: Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce, Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <fb2d915cf60160c200b84df88c6112c1c2d4eefd.1352431674.git.wking@tremily.us>
"W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
> By remaining agnostic on the variable usage, this patch makes
> submodule setup more convenient for all parties.
I personally do not think "remaining agnostic on the usage" is a
good thing, at least for any option to commands at the higher level
on the stack, such as "git submodule". I am afraid that giving an
easier way to set up a variable with undefined semantics may make
setup more confusing for all parties. One party gives one specific
meaning to the field, while another party uses it for something
slightly different.
I would not object to "git config submodule.$name.branch $value", on
the other hand. "git config" can be used to set a piece of data
that has specific meaning, but as a low-level tool, it is not
_limited_ to variables that have defined meaning.
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: orphan blob or what?
From: Robertson, Bruce E @ 2012-11-09 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <87a9urlj23.fsf@intel.com>
Please excuse one inaccuracy: I did a 'git pull' not a clone. So it could be an old .idx file at my end possibly.
Thanks,
bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson, Bruce E
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:25 PM
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: orphan blob or what?
In today's and older clones of https://github.com/mirrors/linux.git I find this object, 6fa98ea0ae40f9a38256f11e5dc270363f785aee, that I can't figure out how to eliminate^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hget rid of. I don't see it in 'git fsck', 'git gc --aggressive --prune' doesn't seem to prune it, can't see it via 'git log'. And yet
linux/.git/objects/pack$ git verify-pack -v *.idx | grep 6fa98ea0ae40f9a38256f11e5dc270363f785aee
6fa98ea0ae40f9a38256f11e5dc270363f785aee blob 1519697 124840 515299673
8231eaa31ce1107c1463deb6ec33f61618aedbb9 blob 67 63 515424513 1 6fa98ea0ae40f9a38256f11e5dc270363f785aee
f21a8c1b9d47736fa4e27def66f04b9fe2b4bc53 blob 90 83 515424576 1 6fa98ea0ae40f9a38256f11e5dc270363f785aee
Thanks,
bruce
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v3 2/3] git-submodule foreach: export .gitmodules settings as variables
From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-11-09 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git; +Cc: Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce, Jens Lehmann, Nahor,
W. Trevor King
In-Reply-To: <cover.1352431674.git.wking@tremily.us>
From: "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>
This makes it easy to access per-submodule variables. For example,
git submodule foreach 'git checkout $(git config --file $toplevel/.gitmodules submodule.$name.branch) && git pull'
can now be reduced to
git submodule foreach 'git checkout $submodule_branch && git pull'
Every submodule.<name>.<opt> setting from .gitmodules is available as
a $submodule_<sanitized-opt> variable. These variables are not
propagated recursively into nested submodules.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Based-on-patch-by: Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 3 +++
git-sh-setup.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
git-submodule.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
mode change 100644 => 100755 git-sh-setup.sh
diff --git a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
index cbec363..9a99826 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
@@ -175,6 +175,9 @@ foreach::
$path is the name of the submodule directory relative to the
superproject, $sha1 is the commit as recorded in the superproject,
and $toplevel is the absolute path to the top-level of the superproject.
+ In addition, every submodule.<name>.<opt> setting from .gitmodules
+ is available as the variable $submodule_<sanitized_opt>. These
+ variables are not propagated recursively into nested submodules.
Any submodules defined in the superproject but not checked out are
ignored by this command. Unless given `--quiet`, foreach prints the name
of each submodule before evaluating the command.
diff --git a/git-sh-setup.sh b/git-sh-setup.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index ee0e0bc..179a920
--- a/git-sh-setup.sh
+++ b/git-sh-setup.sh
@@ -222,6 +222,26 @@ clear_local_git_env() {
unset $(git rev-parse --local-env-vars)
}
+# Remove any suspect characters from a user-generated variable name.
+sanitize_variable_name() {
+ VAR_NAME="$1"
+ printf '%s' "$VAR_NAME" |
+ sed -e 's/^[^a-zA-Z]/_/' -e 's/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/_/g'
+}
+
+# Return a command for setting a new variable.
+# Neither the variable name nor the variable value passed to this
+# function need to be sanitized. You need to eval the returned
+# string, because new variables set by the function itself don't
+# effect the calling process.
+set_user_variable() {
+ VAR_NAME="$1"
+ VAR_VALUE="$2"
+ VAR_NAME=$(sanitize_variable_name "$VAR_NAME")
+ VAR_VALUE=$(printf '%s' "$VAR_VALUE" |
+ sed -e 's/\\/\\\\/g' -e 's/"/\\"/g')
+ printf '%s=%s;\n' "$VAR_NAME" "\"$VAR_VALUE\""
+}
# Platform specific tweaks to work around some commands
case $(uname -s) in
diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh
index bc33112..e4d26f9 100755
--- a/git-submodule.sh
+++ b/git-submodule.sh
@@ -434,8 +434,24 @@ cmd_foreach()
clear_local_git_env
# we make $path available to scripts ...
path=$sm_path
+
+ # make all submodule variables available to scripts
+ eval $(
+ git config -f .gitmodules --get-regexp "^submodule\.${name}\..*" |
+ sed -e "s|^submodule\.${name}\.||" |
+ while read VAR_NAME VAR_VALUE ; do
+ VAR_NAME=$(printf '%s' "$VAR_NAME" | tr A-Z a-z)
+ set_user_variable "submodule_${VAR_NAME}" "$VAR_VALUE"
+ done)
+ UNSET_CMD=$(set |
+ sed -n -e 's|^\(submodule_[a-z_]*\)=.*$|\1|p' |
+ while read VAR_NAME ; do
+ printf 'unset %s;\n' "$VAR_NAME"
+ done)
+
cd "$sm_path" &&
eval "$@" &&
+ eval "$UNSET_CMD" &&
if test -n "$recursive"
then
cmd_foreach "--recursive" "$@"
diff --git a/t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh b/t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh
index 9b69fe2..46ac746 100755
--- a/t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh
+++ b/t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh
@@ -313,4 +313,33 @@ test_expect_success 'command passed to foreach --recursive retains notion of std
test_cmp expected actual
'
+cat > expect <<EOF
+Entering 'nested1'
+nested1 nested1 wonky"value
+Entering 'nested1/nested2'
+nested2 nested2 another wonky"value
+Entering 'nested1/nested2/nested3'
+nested3 nested3
+Entering 'nested1/nested2/nested3/submodule'
+submodule submodule
+Entering 'sub1'
+sub1 sub1
+Entering 'sub2'
+sub2 sub2
+Entering 'sub3'
+sub3 sub3
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'test foreach environment variables' '
+ (
+ cd clone2 &&
+ git config -f .gitmodules submodule.nested1.wonky-var "wonky\"value" &&
+ git config -f nested1/.gitmodules submodule.nested2.wonky-var "another wonky\"value" &&
+ git submodule foreach --recursive "echo \$path \$submodule_path \$submodule_wonky_var" > ../actual
+ ) &&
+ test_i18ncmp expect actual
+'
+#
+#"echo \$toplevel-\$name-\$submodule_path-\$submodule_url"
+
test_done
--
1.8.0.3.gc2eb43a
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] gitweb: make remote_heads config setting work.
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-09 4:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil Pennock; +Cc: git, peff
In-Reply-To: <20121105235047.GA78156@redoubt.spodhuis.org>
Phil Pennock <phil@apcera.com> writes:
> @@ -2702,6 +2702,7 @@ sub git_get_project_config {
> $key = lc($key);
> }
> $key =~ s/^gitweb\.//;
> + $key =~ s/_//g;
> return if ($key =~ m/\W/);
>
> # type sanity check
The idea to strip "_" from "remote_heads" to create "remoteheads" is
fine, but I am not sure if the implementation is good.
Looking at the code before this part:
if (my ($hi, $mi, $lo) = ($key =~ /^([^.]*)\.(.*)\.([^.]*)$/)) {
$key = join(".", lc($hi), $mi, lc($lo));
} else {
$key = lc($key);
}
$key =~ s/^gitweb\.//;
return if ($key =~ m/\W/);
the new code is munding the $hi and $mi parts, while the mistaken
configuration this patch is trying to correct is about the $lo part,
and possibly the $hi part, but never the $mi part.
It is expected that $hi will always be gitweb, and I suspect that
there may not be any "per something" configuration variable (e.g.
"gitweb.master.blame" may be used to override the default value
given by "gitweb.blame" only for the master branch), that uses $mi
part, so it might not matter to munge the entire $key like this
patch does with the current code.
But that makes it even more important to get this part right _now_;
otherwise, it is likely that this new code will introduce a bug to
a future patch that adds "per something" configuration support.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v3 0/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-11-09 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git; +Cc: Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce, Jens Lehmann, Nahor,
W. Trevor King
In-Reply-To: <20121029222759.GI20513@sigill.intra.peff.net>
From: "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>
Here's my revised patch. Changes from v2:
* Revised Ævar-vs-Gerrit usage to show agreement, following Shawn's
comments.
* Added a cleaned up version of Phil's $submodule_* export patch, with
docs and tests.
* Added a caveat to the -r/--record documentation to make it explicit
that submodule.<name>.branch is not used internally by Git. Give an
example of how the user may use it explicitly for Ævar-style
updates.
W. Trevor King (3):
git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
git-submodule foreach: export .gitmodules settings as variables
git-submodule: Motivate --record with an example use case
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
git-sh-setup.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
git-submodule.sh | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
t/t7407-submodule-foreach.sh | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
mode change 100644 => 100755 git-sh-setup.sh
--
1.8.0.3.gc2eb43a
^ 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