* [PATCH] gitk tag delete/rename support
From: Leon KUKOVEC @ 2012-11-23 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Leon KUKOVEC
In-Reply-To: <1353649899-15641-1-git-send-email-leon.kukovec@gmail.com>
Right clicking on a tag pops up a menu, which allows
tag to be renamed or deleted.
Signed-off-by: Leon KUKOVEC <leon.kukovec@gmail.com>
---
gitk-git/gitk | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 154 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gitk-git/gitk b/gitk-git/gitk
index d93bd99..38cc233 100755
--- a/gitk-git/gitk
+++ b/gitk-git/gitk
@@ -2032,6 +2032,7 @@ proc makewindow {} {
global have_tk85 use_ttk NS
global git_version
global worddiff
+ global tagctxmenu
# The "mc" arguments here are purely so that xgettext
# sees the following string as needing to be translated
@@ -2581,6 +2582,13 @@ proc makewindow {} {
{mc "Run git gui blame on this line" command {external_blame_diff}}
}
$diff_menu configure -tearoff 0
+
+ set tagctxmenu .tagctxmenu
+ makemenu $tagctxmenu {
+ {mc "Rename this tag" command mvtag}
+ {mc "Delete this tag" command rmtag}
+ }
+ $tagctxmenu configure -tearoff 0
}
# Windows sends all mouse wheel events to the current focused window, not
@@ -6400,6 +6408,7 @@ proc drawtags {id x xt y1} {
-font $font -tags [list tag.$id text]]
if {$ntags >= 0} {
$canv bind $t <1> [list showtag $tag_quoted 1]
+ $canv bind $t $ctxbut [list showtagmenu %X %Y $id $tag_quoted]
} elseif {$nheads >= 0} {
$canv bind $t $ctxbut [list headmenu %X %Y $id $tag_quoted]
}
@@ -8931,6 +8940,113 @@ proc domktag {} {
return 1
}
+proc mvtag {} {
+ global mvtagtop
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag NS
+ global mvtagtag
+
+ set mvtagtag $tagmenutag
+ set top .movetag
+ set mvtagtop $top
+ catch {destroy $top}
+ ttk_toplevel $top
+ make_transient $top .
+
+ ${NS}::label $top.msg -text [mc "Enter a new tag name:"]
+ ${NS}::entry $top.tag -width 60 -textvariable mvtagtag
+
+ grid $top.msg -sticky w -row 0 -column 0
+ grid $top.tag -sticky w -row 0 -column 1
+
+ ${NS}::frame $top.buts
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.gen -text [mc "Rename"] -command mvtaggo
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.can -text [mc "Cancel"] -command mvtagcan
+ bind $top <Key-Return> mvtaggo
+ bind $top <Key-Escape> mvtagcan
+ grid $top.buts.gen $top.buts.can
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 0 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 1 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid $top.buts - -pady 10 -sticky ew
+}
+
+proc domvtag {} {
+ global mvtagtop env tagids idtags tagmenutag tagmenuid mvtagtag
+
+ set tag $mvtagtag
+ set id $tagmenuid
+
+ # add tag
+ # XXX: reuse domktag including keeping comment from the original tag.
+ if {[catch {
+ exec git tag $tag $id
+ } err]} {
+ error_popup "[mc "Error renaming tag:"] $err" $mvtagtop
+ return 0
+ }
+
+ # delete old tag, content stored in $tagmenutag and $tagmenuid
+ dormtag
+
+ set tagids($tag) $id
+ lappend idtags($id) $tag
+ redrawtags $id
+ addedtag $id
+ dispneartags 0
+ run refill_reflist
+ return 1
+}
+
+proc rmtag {} {
+ global rmtagtop
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag NS
+
+ set top .maketag
+ set rmtagtop $top
+ catch {destroy $top}
+ ttk_toplevel $top
+ make_transient $top .
+ ${NS}::label $top.title -text [mc "Delete tag"]
+ grid $top.title - -pady 10
+
+ ${NS}::label $top.msg -text [mc "You are about to delete a tag"]
+ ${NS}::label $top.tagname -foreground Red -text [mc "$tagmenutag"]
+ grid $top.msg -sticky w -row 0 -column 0
+ grid $top.tagname -sticky w -row 0 -column 1
+
+ ${NS}::frame $top.buts
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.gen -text [mc "Delete"] -command rmtaggo
+ ${NS}::button $top.buts.can -text [mc "Cancel"] -command rmtagcan
+ bind $top <Key-Return> rmtaggo
+ bind $top <Key-Escape> rmtagcan
+ grid $top.buts.gen $top.buts.can
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 0 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid columnconfigure $top.buts 1 -weight 1 -uniform a
+ grid $top.buts - -pady 10 -sticky ew
+}
+
+proc dormtag {} {
+ global rmtagtop env tagids idtags tagmenutag tagmenuid
+
+ set tag $tagmenutag
+ set id $tagmenuid
+
+ if {[catch {
+ exec git tag -d $tag
+ } err]} {
+ error_popup "[mc "Error deleting tag:"] $err" $rmtagtop
+ return 0
+ }
+
+ unset tagids($tag)
+ set idx [lsearch $idtags($id) $tag]
+ set idtags($id) [lreplace $idtags($id) $idx $idx]
+
+ redrawtags $id
+ dispneartags 0
+ run refill_reflist
+ return 1
+}
+
proc redrawtags {id} {
global canv linehtag idpos currentid curview cmitlisted markedid
global canvxmax iddrawn circleitem mainheadid circlecolors
@@ -8974,6 +9090,30 @@ proc mktaggo {} {
mktagcan
}
+proc rmtagcan {} {
+ global rmtagtop
+
+ catch {destroy $rmtagtop}
+ unset rmtagtop
+}
+
+proc rmtaggo {} {
+ if {![dormtag]} return
+ rmtagcan
+}
+
+proc mvtagcan {} {
+ global mvtagtop
+
+ catch {destroy $mvtagtop}
+ unset mvtagtop
+}
+
+proc mvtaggo {} {
+ if {![domvtag]} return
+ mvtagcan
+}
+
proc writecommit {} {
global rowmenuid wrcomtop commitinfo wrcomcmd NS
@@ -9288,6 +9428,20 @@ proc headmenu {x y id head} {
tk_popup $headctxmenu $x $y
}
+# context menu for a tag
+proc showtagmenu {x y id tag} {
+ global tagmenuid tagmenutag tagctxmenu maintag
+
+ stopfinding
+ set tagmenuid $id
+ set tagmenutag $tag
+ set state normal
+
+ $tagctxmenu entryconfigure 0 -state normal
+ $tagctxmenu entryconfigure 1 -state normal
+ tk_popup $tagctxmenu $x $y
+}
+
proc cobranch {} {
global headmenuid headmenuhead headids
global showlocalchanges
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-11-23 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Voigt
Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce,
Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <20121123162329.GF2806@odin.tremily.us>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1160 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:23:29AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:03:01PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> > There is an important question still unanswered here for me: How does
> > the submodule get the configuration what the local branch tracks on the
> > remote side?
>
> A good point ;). I'm actaully using submodule.<name>.branch to store
> the submodule's local branch name. The remote branch name for the
> pull is implicit, and defaults to something setup according to
> branch.autosetupmerge (I think). If you want to get more complicated
> than this, we'll probably have to add submodule.<name>.branch and
> submodule.<name>.remote sections to augment the
> submodule.<name>.branch setting. I'm not sure this is worth it.
These settings are currently stored in
.git/modules/<name>/config
What we're missing is a place to store them in the .gitmodules file.
I'll poke around in the module-config initialization and wait for
inspiration ;).
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Requirements for integrating a new git subcommand
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-23 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Pearce; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAJo=hJsQjXEhmfRUEgBc=RkF3Lk8QVqUqmeAJiOZ0dtvcMYVFw@mail.gmail.com>
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>:
> Nope, it just has to be executable. We don't have any current Python
> code. IIRC the last Python code was the implementation of
> git-merge-recursive, which was ported to C many years ago.
This turns out not to be quite true. The tree currently includes
two Python scripts, a Perforce importer and a test helper.
I'm in he process of writing up a document on command integration
based on your answers. I will submit it for incusion in the tree
shortly.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-11-23 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Voigt
Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce,
Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <20121123155521.GB14509@book.hvoigt.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2806 bytes --]
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 04:55:21PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:52:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
> >
> > > The superproject gitlink should only be updated after
> > >
> > > $ git submodule update --pull
> > >
> > > A plain
> > >
> > > $ git submodule update
> > >
> > > would still checkout the previously-recorded SHA, not the new upstream
> > > tip.
> >
> > Hrm, doesn't it make the "float at the tip of a branch" mode
> > useless, though?
>
> How about having a branch config option and reusing our
> submodule.$name.update option for specifying whether the user wants to
> always float to the tip of the branch?
I'm adding "update --pull" as one of the update options in v4, which I
am writing up as we speak ;).
> 1. If submodule.$name.update is pull it would checkout the specified tip.
and pull from the submodule's upstream. This doesn't need the
recorded $sha1, so I may have to rework the current
if (clear_local_git_env; cd "$sm_path" && $command "$sha1")
> 2. If submodule.$name.update is checkout or none it would do the usual
> thing and you need to specify --pull to get the tip.
Exactly.
> So currently I am more on the "have an automatically generated
> commit message" side. Its in a similar corner like merge commits, that
> are also generated, for me. We could have it as the default and a
> --no-commit option (like merge) for people that want to stage submodules
> individually.
This sounds reasonable, but I'd like to postpone message-generation
sugar until we get the basic functionality ironed out.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:03:01PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:19:12AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > The benefit is that Ævar's
> >
> > $ git submodule foreach 'git checkout $(git config --file $toplevel/.gitmodules submodule.$name.branch) && git pull'
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > $ git submodule update --pull
>
> There is an important question still unanswered here for me: How does
> the submodule get the configuration what the local branch tracks on the
> remote side?
A good point ;). I'm actaully using submodule.<name>.branch to store
the submodule's local branch name. The remote branch name for the
pull is implicit, and defaults to something setup according to
branch.autosetupmerge (I think). If you want to get more complicated
than this, we'll probably have to add submodule.<name>.branch and
submodule.<name>.remote sections to augment the
submodule.<name>.branch setting. I'm not sure this is worth it.
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2012-11-23 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: W. Trevor King
Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce,
Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <20121120121912.GC7096@odin.tremily.us>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:19:12AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> The benefit is that Ævar's
>
> $ git submodule foreach 'git checkout $(git config --file $toplevel/.gitmodules submodule.$name.branch) && git pull'
>
> becomes
>
> $ git submodule update --pull
There is an important question still unanswered here for me: How does
the submodule get the configuration what the local branch tracks on the
remote side?
Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2012-11-23 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: W. Trevor King, Git, Jeff King, Phil Hord, Shawn Pearce,
Jens Lehmann, Nahor
In-Reply-To: <7vhaokrr01.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:52:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> writes:
>
> > The superproject gitlink should only be updated after
> >
> > $ git submodule update --pull
> >
> > A plain
> >
> > $ git submodule update
> >
> > would still checkout the previously-recorded SHA, not the new upstream
> > tip.
>
> Hrm, doesn't it make the "float at the tip of a branch" mode
> useless, though?
How about having a branch config option and reusing our
submodule.$name.update option for specifying whether the user wants to
always float to the tip of the branch?
1. If submodule.$name.update is pull it would checkout the specified tip.
2. If submodule.$name.update is checkout or none it would do the usual
thing and you need to specify --pull to get the tip.
I am still a little bit undecided about an automatically crafted commit.
At $dayjob we sometimes update submodules to their tip without any
superproject changes just to make sure we use the newest version. Most
of the time the commit messages are along the lines of "updated
submodule x to master".
On one hand Junio is right that the person updating to the newest
submodule stuff has no clue what to write in this message. On the other
hand someone might as well just use this functionality to get all the
tips of all the submodules checked out. He then individually decides
which changes to take by using add but will then still use a commit
message like the one above.
So currently I am more on the "have an automatically generated
commit message" side. Its in a similar corner like merge commits, that
are also generated, for me. We could have it as the default and a
--no-commit option (like merge) for people that want to stage submodules
individually.
Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Requirements for integrating a new git subcommand
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-23 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael J Gruber; +Cc: Shawn Pearce, git
In-Reply-To: <50AF3E36.4080800@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>:
> Regarding git-weave, I'm wondering (without having looked at the code)
> how this relates to git-archiv and git-fast-import/export, i.e. how much
> this leverages existing infrastructure rather than reinventing the
> wheel. Do your "trees" correspond to a "git tree"?
The unravel operation of git-weave is something like running
git-archive on every revision and saving the results in
sequentially-named directories, except that it also produces a
metadata file that allows the operation to be inverted.
So it is strictly more powerful.
The weave operation could be implemented using git fast-import, which
I am quite intimately familiar with from having written reposurgeon.
Functionally, the difference is that it would be a PITA to patch a
fast-import stream to insert or modify or remove revisions in the
middle, because the content of any given revision is in blobs that can
stretch arbitrarily far back from its commit and are shared with
other revisions. With git-weave tree-sequences these operations
are easy and safe.
> Again, without having looked at the code, it seems to me that exploding
> blob and tree objects might give you a structure not much unlike
> weave's, and your instruction sheet resembles that of fast-import quite
> a bit (plus date fill-in etc.).
The weave log resembles an import stream, yes - that's because they
have to capture the same data ontology. One major difference is that weave
logs are designed to be generated and edited by humans.
> One could even dream about implementing this as a remote helper instead...
What is a "remote helper" in this context?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git bash does not access drive f:
From: Angelo Borsotti @ 2012-11-23 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Voigt; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121123153106.GA14509@book.hvoigt.net>
Hi Heiko,
I have changed the external drive and seen that the new one works. The
issue is, I guess, that the first drive was named "My Passport", with
a space in it, while the second one is "Iomega". Spaces in drive names
are not accepted by Linux, which could explain why they are a problem
also with git bash (even if bash could access them using what is
passed to it, which is a drive letter, and not the drive name).
Thank you
-Angelo
On 23 November 2012 16:31, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:07:55AM +0100, Angelo Borsotti wrote:
>> I have attached an external disc, which appears on Windows as drive f:
>> in Windows Explorer.
>> Right-clicking on it displays a context menu showing (among other
>> items) Git Init Here, Git Gui and
>> Git Bash. The first two work properly on that drive.
>> However, the git bash does not. Not even the one that is run from the icon:
>>
>> $ cd f:
>> sh.exe": cd: f:: No such file or directory
>>
>>
>> Is there any way to make it access drive f?
>
> Try using the environment variable MSYS_WATCH_FSTAB=YesPlease.
>
> We have an optimization in msys that does not update the virtually
> mounted folders and makes msys executable startups faster. I had similar
> issues with mounted disk images.
>
> The other alternative: After having the external disc mounted logout and
> login again that AFAIR that should also help.
>
> Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Requirements for integrating a new git subcommand
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-23 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Krefting; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1211231022440.1431@ds9.cixit.se>
Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
> I was just about to say that the import direction of this seems to
> fill the same need as contrib/fast-import/import-directories.perl
> that I submitted a few years back.
Yours was the closest in functionality, yes.
> Your version seems only to be able to import a linear history,
> however, my tool does support creating merge commits (basically, the
> history I had to import was very messy and contained a lot of
> snapshot directories having been worked on in parallel).
git-weave can *weave* (import) a sequence with merge commits, as your
tool can. What it can't do is unravel a nonlinear repo into a tree
sequence that will round-trip through the weave operation. (Though I
thought of a way I might be able to fix that last night.)
> Anyway, my sentiment is that if you can add support for merges in
> you weave tool, then I am very much for removing my old script from
> the repository.
The support is there. I will take this as direction to (a) add a
test load demonstrating this, and (b) include the removal of
import-directories.perl in my integration patch.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: git bash does not access drive f:
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2012-11-23 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Angelo Borsotti; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAB9Jk9Ae46PNRex9QrEy9gTgqAbn8KUFifmxQU4s5K5mDDmDZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:07:55AM +0100, Angelo Borsotti wrote:
> I have attached an external disc, which appears on Windows as drive f:
> in Windows Explorer.
> Right-clicking on it displays a context menu showing (among other
> items) Git Init Here, Git Gui and
> Git Bash. The first two work properly on that drive.
> However, the git bash does not. Not even the one that is run from the icon:
>
> $ cd f:
> sh.exe": cd: f:: No such file or directory
>
>
> Is there any way to make it access drive f?
Try using the environment variable MSYS_WATCH_FSTAB=YesPlease.
We have an optimization in msys that does not update the virtually
mounted folders and makes msys executable startups faster. I had similar
issues with mounted disk images.
The other alternative: After having the external disc mounted logout and
login again that AFAIR that should also help.
Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v3] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Marc Khouzam @ 2012-11-23 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, SZEDER Gábor, Felipe Contreras
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2bMub6T1YcUfsYWPQFU1bY4iU1WfSf+jFa7jSXAKTNaw@mail.gmail.com>
The user can be presented with invalid completion results
when trying to complete a 'git checkout' command. This can happen
when using a branch name prefix that matches multiple remote branches.
For example, if available branches are:
master
remotes/GitHub/maint
remotes/GitHub/master
remotes/origin/maint
remotes/origin/master
When performing completion on 'git checkout ma' the user will be
given the choices:
maint
master
However, 'git checkout maint' will fail in this case, although
completion previously said 'maint' was valid. Furthermore, when
performing completion on 'git checkout mai', no choices will be
suggested. So, the user is first told that the branch name
'maint' is valid, but when trying to complete 'mai' into 'maint',
that completion is no longer valid.
The completion results should never propose 'maint' as a valid
branch name, since 'git checkout' will refuse it.
The reason for this bug is that the uniq program only
works with sorted input. The man page states
"uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
When __git_refs uses the guess heuristic employed by checkout for
tracking branches it wants to consider remote branches but only if
the branch name is unique. To do that, it calls 'uniq -u'. However
the input given to 'uniq -u' is not sorted.
Therefore, in the above example, when dealing with 'git checkout ma',
"__git_refs '' 1" will find the following list:
master
maint
master
maint
master
which, when passed to 'uniq -u' will remain the same. Therefore
'maint' will be wrongly suggested as a valid option.
When dealing with 'git checkout mai', the list will be:
maint
maint
which happens to be sorted and will be emptied by 'uniq -u',
properly ignoring 'maint'.
A solution for preventing the completion script from suggesting
such invalid branch names is to first call 'sort' and then 'uniq -u'.
Signed-off-by: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com>
---
> Mostly cosmetic suggestions, but it looks OK to me.
Thanks for the suggestions, I updated the commit message.
> With this explanation the patch looks good to me.
Thanks for the quick review.
Marc
contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
index bc0657a..85ae419 100644
--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ __git_refs ()
if [[ "$ref" == "$cur"* ]]; then
echo "$ref"
fi
- done | uniq -u
+ done | sort | uniq -u
fi
return
fi
--
1.8.0.1.g9fe2839
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] gitk tag delete/rename support
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra @ 2012-11-23 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon KUKOVEC; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <1353649899-15641-1-git-send-email-leon.kukovec@gmail.com>
Leon KUKOVEC wrote:
> ---
> [...]
Commit message and signoff?
Ram
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Joachim Schmitz @ 2012-11-23 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Sascha Cunz'
Cc: 'Marc Khouzam', git, szeder, felipe.contreras
In-Reply-To: <2630847.8aaR79v5Od@blacky>
> From: Sascha Cunz [mailto:sascha-ml@babbelbox.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 1:26 PM
> To: Joachim Schmitz
> Cc: 'Marc Khouzam'; git@vger.kernel.org; szeder@ira.uka.de; felipe.contreras@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
>
> > I can't see the difference and in fact don't understand uniq's -u option al
> > all Linux man pages say: "only print unique lines", but that is what uniq
> > does by default anyway?!?
>
> From the german translation of uniq's man-page, you can deduct that "only
> print unique lines" actually means: "print lines that are _not repeated_ in
> the input".
>
> A short test confirms that. i.e.:
>
> printf "a\nb\nb\nc\n" | uniq -u
>
> gives:
> a
> c
Ah, OK, then I rest my case. Sorry for the noise.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Sascha Cunz @ 2012-11-23 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joachim Schmitz; +Cc: 'Marc Khouzam', git, szeder, felipe.contreras
In-Reply-To: <003b01cdc974$4cdd1900$e6974b00$@schmitz-digital.de>
> I can't see the difference and in fact don't understand uniq's -u option al
> all Linux man pages say: "only print unique lines", but that is what uniq
> does by default anyway?!?
>From the german translation of uniq's man-page, you can deduct that "only
print unique lines" actually means: "print lines that are _not repeated_ in
the input".
A short test confirms that. i.e.:
printf "a\nb\nb\nc\n" | uniq -u
gives:
a
c
Sascha
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Joachim Schmitz @ 2012-11-23 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Marc Khouzam', git; +Cc: szeder, felipe.contreras
In-Reply-To: <CAFj1UpEMKq9zH3nbLwYrNZRmd52_KEcN5BBrzGg2jxCzd+fsbA@mail.gmail.com>
Re-adding git@vger...
> From: Marc Khouzam [mailto:marc.khouzam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:51 AM
> To: Joachim Schmitz
> Cc: szeder@ira.uka.de; felipe.contreras@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Joachim Schmitz
> <jojo@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
> > Marc Khouzam wrote:
> >> The uniq program only works with sorted input. The man page states
> >> "uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
> > ...
> >> --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> >> +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> >> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ __git_refs ()
> >> if [[ "$ref" == "$cur"* ]]; then
> >> echo "$ref"
> >> fi
> >> - done | uniq -u
> >> + done | sort | uniq -u
> >
> > Is 'sort -u' not universally available and sufficient here? It is POSIX
> > at least:
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sort.html
>
> "-u Unique: suppress all but one in each set of lines having equal
> keys. If used with the -c option, check that there are no lines with
> duplicate keys, in addition to checking that the input file is
> sorted."
>
> What the code aims to do is to only show lines that are not
> duplicated. 'sort -u' would still output one line for each duplicated
> one. It seems 'sort -u' is the equivalent of 'sort | uniq' but won't
> replace 'sort | uniq -u'.
I can't see the difference and in fact don't understand uniq's -u option al all
Linux man pages say: "only print unique lines", but that is what uniq does by default anyway?!?
> Is 'sort | uniq -u' not POSIX?
It is. It is one process more though.
Bye, Jojo
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-23 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Khouzam; +Cc: git, SZEDER Gábor
In-Reply-To: <CAFj1UpHAqrNvpF+HAxJUPiWAiHbCn=7r1GDw3iMKy8FDW_-D_A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
Mostly cosmetic suggestions, but it looks OK to me.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com> wrote:
> The user can be presented with invalid completion results
> when trying to complete a 'git checkout' command. This can happen
> when using a branch name prefix that matches multiple remote branches.
Space here.
> For example if available branches are:
For example; <- separation
> master
> remotes/GitHub/maint
> remotes/GitHub/master
> remotes/origin/maint
> remotes/origin/master
>
> When performing completion on 'git checkout ma' the user will be
> given the choices:
> maint
> master
Space.
> However, 'git checkout maint' will fail in this case, although
> completion previously said 'maint' was valid.
Space (or continue paragraph).
> Furthermore, when performing completion on 'git checkout mai',
> no choices will be suggested. So, the user is first told that the
> branch name 'maint' is valid, but when trying to complete 'mai'
> into 'maint', that completion is no longer valid.
>
> The completion results should never propose 'maint' as a valid
> branch name, since 'git checkout' will refuse it.
With this explanation the patch looks good to me.
> The reason for this bug is that the uniq program only
> works with sorted input. The man page states
> "uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
>
> When __git_refs uses the guess heuristic employed by checkout for
> tracking branches it wants to consider remote branches but only if
> the branch name is unique. To do that, it calls 'uniq -u'. However
> the input given to 'uniq -u' is not sorted.
>
> Therefore, in the above example, when dealing with 'git checkout ma',
> "__git_refs '' 1" will find the following list:
> master
> maint
> master
> maint
> master
Space.
> which, when passed to 'uniq -u' will remain the same. Therefore
> 'maint' will be wrongly suggested as a valid option.
Space.
> When dealing with 'git checkout mai', the list will be:
> maint
> maint
Space.
> which happens to be sorted and will be emptied by 'uniq -u',
> properly ignoring 'maint'.
>
> A solution for preventing the completion script from suggesting
> such invalid branch names is to first call 'sort' and then 'uniq -u'.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v2] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Marc Khouzam @ 2012-11-23 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git, SZEDER Gábor
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3qpr11JXi-znddAH2BWYbM_kp+nZnTa8CQgCzrBmfzmA@mail.gmail.com>
The user can be presented with invalid completion results
when trying to complete a 'git checkout' command. This can happen
when using a branch name prefix that matches multiple remote branches.
For example if available branches are:
master
remotes/GitHub/maint
remotes/GitHub/master
remotes/origin/maint
remotes/origin/master
When performing completion on 'git checkout ma' the user will be
given the choices:
maint
master
However, 'git checkout maint' will fail in this case, although
completion previously said 'maint' was valid.
Furthermore, when performing completion on 'git checkout mai',
no choices will be suggested. So, the user is first told that the
branch name 'maint' is valid, but when trying to complete 'mai'
into 'maint', that completion is no longer valid.
The completion results should never propose 'maint' as a valid
branch name, since 'git checkout' will refuse it.
The reason for this bug is that the uniq program only
works with sorted input. The man page states
"uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
When __git_refs uses the guess heuristic employed by checkout for
tracking branches it wants to consider remote branches but only if
the branch name is unique. To do that, it calls 'uniq -u'. However
the input given to 'uniq -u' is not sorted.
Therefore, in the above example, when dealing with 'git checkout ma',
"__git_refs '' 1" will find the following list:
master
maint
master
maint
master
which, when passed to 'uniq -u' will remain the same. Therefore
'maint' will be wrongly suggested as a valid option.
When dealing with 'git checkout mai', the list will be:
maint
maint
which happens to be sorted and will be emptied by 'uniq -u',
properly ignoring 'maint'.
A solution for preventing the completion script from suggesting
such invalid branch names is to first call 'sort' and then 'uniq -u'.
Signed-off-by: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com>
---
>> The solution is to first call 'sort' and then 'uniq -u'.
>
> The solution to what? This seems to be the right thing indeed, but you
> don't explain what is the actual problem that is being solved. What
> does the user experience? What would (s)he experience after the patch?
I have re-worked the commit message to be more clear about the user
impacts.
Thanks for the feedback.
Marc
contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
index bc0657a..85ae419 100644
--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ __git_refs ()
if [[ "$ref" == "$cur"* ]]; then
echo "$ref"
fi
- done | uniq -u
+ done | sort | uniq -u
fi
return
fi
--
1.8.0.1.g9fe2839
^ permalink raw reply related
* remote helper and relative local paths
From: Max Horn @ 2012-11-23 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
I noticed a problem with remote helpers which is mainly about convenience, but still annoying enough that I wish it could be resolved; but I'd like some input on what the proper way would be...
Here is the issue: cloning with relative paths is problematic (if not broken) when using remote-helpers, unless one is willing to dive into some (IMHO) gross hacking... To demonstrate what I mean, first consider that cloning a local git repo using relative paths works fine: If the parent dir contains a git repository "git-repo", this works:
$ git clone ../git-repo git-clone
Cloning into 'git-clone'...
done.
$ cd git-clone && git pull
Current branch master is up to date.
$
But when doing the same with a remote helper, it doesn't work; or rather, the initial cloning might work, but we end up with a broken remote.origin.url, as that still contains the relative path, but it no longer can be resolved since the PWD changed. E.g. here is an example using felipe's remote-hg:
$ git clone hg::../hg-repo git-clone
Cloning into 'git-clone'...
$ cd git-clone && git pull
Traceback (most recent call last):
[...]
mercurial.error.RepoError: repository ../hg-repo not found
$
One problem here is that git cannot resolve the local path in "hg::../hg-repo", because this URL is opaque for git, it's a black-box. Hence the code in "git clone" that would normally take care of this (specifically, get_repo_path() in builtin/clone.c) does not get applied.
Now, it is not difficult to resolve a relative path, and so a remote helper can do this -- but we only can do this while cloning (and then have to store the absolute path / the new URL), because later on, crucial information (the PWD at the time of cloning) is not available anymore.
So I made a hack that does this: In the remote helper, if the URL looks like a local path, and points to a directory containing a .hg subdir (or some variation of that), translate it into an absolute path. Then (and that is the part I feel bad about) invoke
git config remote.REPOS_ALIAS.url hg::the_computed_absolute_path
This works, but feels like a gross hack to me. In particular, as Felipe pointed out to me: While git is setting the remote.origin.url before invoking the remote helper right now, there is no guarantee for that (at least none that I am aware of).
So, is there a better way to achieve this that I am overlooking? Or does what I am doing actually seem fine? Or should there be a change to git itself (e.g. a revision to the remote-helper protocol) that helps to take care of that? And how should that look?
One simple idea for the last option would be to add a "sanitize" capability to remote-helpers, which takes a repository URL, and returns a sanitized version, where e.g. local paths have been resolved, and then "git clone" would make use of that to set the remote URL right. But perhaps I am overcomplicating things?
Cheers,
Max
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 0/8] fix git-config with duplicate variable entries
From: Joachim Schmitz @ 2012-11-23 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <7vehjm20yu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
...
> Not exactly. There are three classes of people:
>
> - wrote scripts using --get; found out that --get barfs if you feed
> two or more of the same, and have long learned to accept it as a
> limitation and adjusted their configuration files to avoid it.
> They have been doing just fine and wouldn't benefit from this
> series at all.
>
> - wrote scripts using --get, relying on it barfing if fed zero
> (i.e. missing) or two or more (i.e. ambiguous), perhaps a way to
> keep their configuration files (arguably unnecessarily) clean.
> They are directly harmed by this series.
>
> - wrote scripts using --get-all and did the last-one-wins
> themselves. They wouldn't benefit directly from this series,
> unless they are willing to spend a bit of time to remove their
> own last-one-wins logic and replace --get-all with --get (but the
> same effort is needed to migrate to --get-one).
>
> - wanted to write scripts using --get, but after finding out that
> it barfs if you feed two, gave up emulating the internal, without
> realizing that they could do so with --get-all. They can now
> write their scripts without using --get-all.
There are three classes ofpeople: those that can count and those that can't
Sorry could not resist ;-)
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Requirements for integrating a new git subcommand
From: Peter Krefting @ 2012-11-23 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric S. Raymond; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121122053012.GA17265@thyrsus.com>
Eric S. Raymond:
> git-weave(1)
> Yes, there are scripts in contrib that do similar things.
I was just about to say that the import direction of this seems to
fill the same need as contrib/fast-import/import-directories.perl that
I submitted a few years back.
Your version seems only to be able to import a linear history,
however, my tool does support creating merge commits (basically, the
history I had to import was very messy and contained a lot of snapshot
directories having been worked on in parallel).
> (b) I am shipping it with a functional test,
Hmm, indeed. I have been thinking of trying to wrap up the test suite
I have locally into something that could work within the Git testing
framework, but haven't found the time to or energy for so far.
Anyway, my sentiment is that if you can add support for merges in you
weave tool, then I am very much for removing my old script from the
repository.
--
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Requirements for integrating a new git subcommand
From: Michael J Gruber @ 2012-11-23 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: Shawn Pearce, git
In-Reply-To: <20121122221107.GA16069@thyrsus.com>
Eric S. Raymond venit, vidit, dixit 22.11.2012 23:11:
> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>:
>> [Lots of helpful stuff ended by]
>>> 4. How does "git help" work? That is, how is a subcommand expected
>>> to know when it is being called to export its help text?
>>
>> IIRC "git help foo" runs "man git-foo".
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
>>> 5. I don't see any extensions written in Python. Are there any special
>>> requirements or exclusions for Python scripts?
>>
>> Nope, it just has to be executable. We don't have any current Python
>> code. IIRC the last Python code was the implementation of
>> git-merge-recursive, which was ported to C many years ago. We avoid
>> Python because it is not on every platform where Git is installed. Yes
>> Python is very portable and can be installed in many places, but we
>> prefer not to make it a requirement.
>
> I find that odd. You avoid Python but use shellscripts? *blink*
>
> One would think shellscripts were a much more serious portability problem.
Different versions of python can be a mess to deal with, also, at least
with respect to standard modules being "standard" or not for a specific
version.
In any case, the point is that we try to avoid *additional*
dependencies. Shell and perl are given with the status quo.
That being said, we also have remote helpers in python. The testsuite
can run tests depending on the availability of python.
Regarding git-weave, I'm wondering (without having looked at the code)
how this relates to git-archiv and git-fast-import/export, i.e. how much
this leverages existing infrastructure rather than reinventing the
wheel. Do your "trees" correspond to a "git tree"?
Again, without having looked at the code, it seems to me that exploding
blob and tree objects might give you a structure not much unlike
weave's, and your instruction sheet resembles that of fast-import quite
a bit (plus date fill-in etc.).
One could even dream about implementing this as a remote helper instead...
Michael
^ permalink raw reply
* [RFC/PATCH] Option to revert order of parents in merge commit
From: Kacper Kornet @ 2012-11-23 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
When the changes are pushed upstream, and in the meantime someone else
updated upstream branch git advises to use git pull. This results in
history:
---A---B---C--
\ /
D---E
where B is my commit. D, E are commits pushed by someone else when I was
working on B. However sometimes the following history is preferable:
---A---D---C'--
\ /
-B-
The difference between C and C' is the order of parents. Presently to
obtain it, instead of git pull, one needs to do (assuming that I am on
the master branch):
git fetch origin
git branch tmp_branch
git reset --hard origin/master
git merge tmp_branch
Reverting from wrong pull is more cumbersome. It would be simpler if git
merge learn an option to reverse order of parents in the produced
commits, so one could do:
git fetch origin
git merge --revert-order origin/master
The following patch is an attempt to implement this idea.
Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
---
I'm not 100% percent sure that it is a good idea. But it would make life
of our developers easier and produced nicer history then using git pull.
Git pull seems to written for a case of single maintainer who gathers
contributions from other developers and incorporates them in master
branch. However in my opinion it doesn't produce best history when many
developers modify the canonical repository.
builtin/commit.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
builtin/merge.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
commit.c | 11 +++++++++++
commit.h | 2 ++
4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
index 1dd2ec5..ab2b844 100644
--- a/builtin/commit.c
+++ b/builtin/commit.c
@@ -1427,7 +1427,6 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
unsigned char sha1[20];
struct ref_lock *ref_lock;
struct commit_list *parents = NULL, **pptr = &parents;
- struct stat statbuf;
int allow_fast_forward = 1;
struct commit *current_head = NULL;
struct commit_extra_header *extra = NULL;
@@ -1478,10 +1477,21 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
} else if (whence == FROM_MERGE) {
struct strbuf m = STRBUF_INIT;
FILE *fp;
+ int reversed_order=0;
if (!reflog_msg)
reflog_msg = "commit (merge)";
- pptr = &commit_list_insert(current_head, pptr)->next;
+ if((fp = fopen(git_path("MERGE_MODE"), "r"))) {
+ while (strbuf_getline(&m, fp, '\n') != EOF) {
+ if (!strcmp(m.buf, "no-ff"))
+ allow_fast_forward = 0;
+ if (!strcmp(m.buf, "reversed-order"))
+ reversed_order = 1;
+ }
+ fclose(fp);
+ }
+ if (!reversed_order)
+ pptr = &commit_list_insert(current_head, pptr)->next;
fp = fopen(git_path("MERGE_HEAD"), "r");
if (fp == NULL)
die_errno(_("could not open '%s' for reading"),
@@ -1496,12 +1506,8 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
}
fclose(fp);
strbuf_release(&m);
- if (!stat(git_path("MERGE_MODE"), &statbuf)) {
- if (strbuf_read_file(&sb, git_path("MERGE_MODE"), 0) < 0)
- die_errno(_("could not read MERGE_MODE"));
- if (!strcmp(sb.buf, "no-ff"))
- allow_fast_forward = 0;
- }
+ if (reversed_order)
+ pptr = &commit_list_insert(current_head, pptr)->next;
if (allow_fast_forward)
parents = reduce_heads(parents);
} else {
diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
index a96e8ea..8d0ed18 100644
--- a/builtin/merge.c
+++ b/builtin/merge.c
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ static int abort_current_merge;
static int show_progress = -1;
static int default_to_upstream;
static const char *sign_commit;
+static int reversed_order=0;
static struct strategy all_strategy[] = {
{ "recursive", DEFAULT_TWOHEAD | NO_TRIVIAL },
@@ -213,6 +214,7 @@ static struct option builtin_merge_options[] = {
{ OPTION_STRING, 'S', "gpg-sign", &sign_commit, N_("key id"),
N_("GPG sign commit"), PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, NULL, (intptr_t) "" },
OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "overwrite-ignore", &overwrite_ignore, N_("update ignored files (default)")),
+ OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "revert-order", &reversed_order, N_("reverse order of parents")),
OPT_END()
};
@@ -822,9 +824,9 @@ static int merge_trivial(struct commit *head, struct commit_list *remoteheads)
write_tree_trivial(result_tree);
printf(_("Wonderful.\n"));
- parent->item = head;
+ parent->item = reversed_order ? remoteheads->item : head;
parent->next = xmalloc(sizeof(*parent->next));
- parent->next->item = remoteheads->item;
+ parent->next->item = reversed_order ? head : remoteheads->item;
parent->next->next = NULL;
prepare_to_commit(remoteheads);
if (commit_tree(&merge_msg, result_tree, parent, result_commit, NULL,
@@ -848,8 +850,12 @@ static int finish_automerge(struct commit *head,
free_commit_list(common);
parents = remoteheads;
- if (!head_subsumed || !allow_fast_forward)
+ if (!head_subsumed || !allow_fast_forward) {
+ if (reversed_order )
+ commit_list_insert_end(head, &parents);
+ else
commit_list_insert(head, &parents);
+ }
strbuf_addch(&merge_msg, '\n');
prepare_to_commit(remoteheads);
if (commit_tree(&merge_msg, result_tree, parents, result_commit,
@@ -994,7 +1000,9 @@ static void write_merge_state(struct commit_list *remoteheads)
die_errno(_("Could not open '%s' for writing"), filename);
strbuf_reset(&buf);
if (!allow_fast_forward)
- strbuf_addf(&buf, "no-ff");
+ strbuf_addf(&buf, "no-ff\n");
+ if (reversed_order)
+ strbuf_addf(&buf, "reversed-order\n");
if (write_in_full(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) != buf.len)
die_errno(_("Could not write to '%s'"), filename);
close(fd);
diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index e8eb0ae..6e58994 100644
--- a/commit.c
+++ b/commit.c
@@ -363,6 +363,17 @@ struct commit_list *commit_list_insert(struct commit *item, struct commit_list *
return new_list;
}
+struct commit_list *commit_list_insert_end(struct commit *item, struct commit_list **list_p)
+{
+ struct commit_list *list_iter = *list_p;
+ while(list_iter->next)
+ list_iter = list_iter->next;
+ list_iter->next = xmalloc(sizeof(*list_iter->next));
+ list_iter->next->item = item;
+ list_iter->next->next = NULL;
+ return *list_p;
+}
+
unsigned commit_list_count(const struct commit_list *l)
{
unsigned c = 0;
diff --git a/commit.h b/commit.h
index b6ad8f3..17ae5e5 100644
--- a/commit.h
+++ b/commit.h
@@ -53,6 +53,8 @@ int find_commit_subject(const char *commit_buffer, const char **subject);
struct commit_list *commit_list_insert(struct commit *item,
struct commit_list **list);
+struct commit_list *commit_list_insert_end(struct commit *item,
+ struct commit_list **list);
struct commit_list **commit_list_append(struct commit *commit,
struct commit_list **next);
unsigned commit_list_count(const struct commit_list *l);
--
1.8.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-23 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Khouzam; +Cc: git, SZEDER Gábor
In-Reply-To: <CAFj1UpF2wh0imcqW7Ez_J14R_07a_A1-YWESaGrHRNa7Nsv-xg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com> wrote:
> The uniq program only works with sorted input. The man page states
> "uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
>
> When __git_refs use the guess heuristic employed by checkout for
> tracking branches it wants to consider remote branches but only if
> the branch name is unique. To do that, it calls 'uniq -u'. However
> the input given to 'uniq -u' is not sorted.
>
> For example if all available branches are:
> master
> remotes/GitHub/maint
> remotes/GitHub/master
> remotes/origin/maint
> remotes/origin/master
>
> When performing completion on 'git checkout ma' the choices given are
> maint
> master
> but when performing completion on 'git checkout mai', no choices
> appear, which is obviously contradictory.
>
> The reason is that, when dealing with 'git checkout ma',
> "__git_refs '' 1" will find the following list:
> master
> maint
> master
> maint
> master
> which, when passed to 'uniq -u' will remain the same.
> But when dealing with 'git checkout mai', the list will be:
> maint
> maint
> which happens to be sorted and will be emptied by 'uniq -u'.
>
> The solution is to first call 'sort' and then 'uniq -u'.
The solution to what? This seems to be the right thing indeed, but you
don't explain what is the actual problem that is being solved. What
does the user experience? What would (s)he experience after the patch?
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Completion must sort before using uniq
From: Joachim Schmitz @ 2012-11-23 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <CAFj1UpF2wh0imcqW7Ez_J14R_07a_A1-YWESaGrHRNa7Nsv-xg@mail.gmail.com>
Marc Khouzam wrote:
> The uniq program only works with sorted input. The man page states
> "uniq prints the unique lines in a sorted file".
...
> --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ __git_refs ()
> if [[ "$ref" == "$cur"* ]]; then
> echo "$ref"
> fi
> - done | uniq -u
> + done | sort | uniq -u
Is 'sort -u' not universally available and sufficient here? It is POSIX at
least:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sort.html
Bye, Jojo
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] diff: Fixes shortstat number of files
From: Antoine Pelisse @ 2012-11-23 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Antoine Pelisse
There is a discrepancy between the last line of `git diff --stat`
and `git diff --shortstat` in case of a merge.
The unmerged files are actually counted twice, thus doubling the
value of "file changed".
In fact, while stat decrements number of files when seeing an unmerged
file, shortstat doesn't.
Signed-off-by: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com>
---
diff.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
index e89a201..5c6bcbd 100644
--- a/diff.c
+++ b/diff.c
@@ -1704,9 +1704,8 @@ static void show_shortstats(struct diffstat_t *data, struct diff_options *option
int added = data->files[i]->added;
int deleted= data->files[i]->deleted;
- if (data->files[i]->is_unmerged)
- continue;
- if (!data->files[i]->is_renamed && (added + deleted == 0)) {
+ if (data->files[i]->is_unmerged ||
+ (!data->files[i]->is_renamed && (added + deleted == 0))) {
total_files--;
} else if (!data->files[i]->is_binary) { /* don't count bytes */
adds += added;
--
1.7.9.5
^ 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