* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Option to revert order of parents in merge commit
From: Aaron Schrab @ 2012-11-26 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Kacper Kornet, git
In-Reply-To: <7v8v9otfdy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
At 09:58 -0800 26 Nov 2012, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org> writes:
>> The change of order of parents happens at the very last moment, so
>> "ours" in merge options is local version and "theirs" upstream.
>
>That may be something that wants to go to the proposed commit log
>message. I am neutral on the "feature" (i.e. not against it but not
>extremely enthusiastic about it either).
That should also be included in the (currently nonexistent)
documentation of the proposed option.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] emacs: make 'git-status' work with separate git dirs
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-26 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Julliard; +Cc: git, Enrico Scholz
In-Reply-To: <87ehjit5ke.fsf@wine.dyndns.org>
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@sigma-chemnitz.de> writes:
>>
>>> when trying 'M-x git-status' in a submodule created with recent (1.7.5+)
>>> git, the command fails with
>>>
>>> | ... is not a git working tree
>>>
>>> This is caused by creating submodules with '--separate-git-dir' but
>>> still checking for a working tree by testing for a '.git' directory.
>>>
>>> The patch fixes this by relaxing the existing detection a little bit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@sigma-chemnitz.de>
>>> ---
>>
>> This script already relies on the assumption that nobody sane would
>> create a directory named ".git" that is not a git repository, and
>> this loosens the assumption that nobody would create a file named
>> ".git", either. So I would think it is a sane thing to do, but just
>> in case if the area expert has better ideas, I am forwarding it.
>>
>> Ack?
>
> Sure, that's fine.
Thanks, both. Applied.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 5/5] git-send-email: allow edit invalid email address
From: Krzysztof Mazur @ 2012-11-26 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Felipe Contreras, Andreas Schwab, Felipe Balbi,
Tomi Valkeinen
In-Reply-To: <7vhaocotsd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> writes:
>
> >> Not having this new code inside "elsif (/^e/) { }" feels somewhat
> >> sloppy, even though it is not *too* bad. Also do we know this
> >
> > ok, I will fix that.
> >
> >> function will never be used for addresses other than recipients' (I
> >> gave a cursory look to see what is done to the $sender and it does
> >> not seem to go through this function, tho)?
> >
> > Yes, this function is called only from validate_address_just()
> > to filter @initial_to, @initial_cc, @bcc_list as early as possible,
> > and filter @to and @cc added in each email.
>
> Thanks; when merged to 'pu', this series seems to break t9001. I'll
> push the result out with breakages but could you take a look?
>
Sorry, I tested final version only on an ancient perl 5.8.8 and it really
worked there. The third patch is broken:
diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
index 9996735..f3bbc16 100755
--- a/git-send-email.perl
+++ b/git-send-email.perl
@@ -1472,7 +1472,7 @@ sub unique_email_list {
my @emails;
foreach my $entry (@_) {
- my $clean = extract_valid_address_or_die($entry))
+ my $clean = extract_valid_address_or_die($entry);
$seen{$clean} ||= 0;
next if $seen{$clean}++;
push @emails, $entry;
Krzysiek
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-26 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2+NDyL2Vf=iKR09f-YUnp=G2BCiYj-+qKuP7JA-+YkmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Might be easier to just call 'git ls-files --with-three foo', but I
> don't see the point of those calls:
Ah, much is now explained. You were looking at an old version. I had
in fact already fixed the subdirectories bug (I've updated my
regression test to check) and have full support for branchy repos,
preserving tags and branch heads.
> > It doesn't issue delete ops.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> out.puts 'deleteall' <- All current files are removed
Yours emits no D ops for files removed after a particular snapshot.
> > Be aware, however, that I consider easy editability by human beings
> > much more important than squeezing the last microsecond out of the
> > processing time. So, for example, I won't use data byte counts rather
> > than end delimiters, the way import streams do.
>
> Well, if there's a line with a single dot in the commit message ('.'),
> things would go very bad.
Apparently you missed the part where I byte-stuffed the message content.
It's a technique used in a lot of old-school Internet protocols, notably
in SMTP.
> Personally I would prefer something like this:
There's a certain elegance to that, but it would be hard to generate by hand.
Remember that a major use case for this tool is making repositories
from projects whose back history exists only as tarballs. So, let's
say you have the following:
foo-1.1.tar.gz
foo-1.2.tar.gz
foo-1.3.tar.gz
What you're going to do before weaving is drop the untarred file trees
in a 'foo' scratch directory, then hand-craft a log file that might
look a bit like this:
-----------------------------------
commit 1
directory foo-1.1
Release 1.1 of project foo
.
commit 2
directory foo-1.2
..This is an example of a byte-stuffed line.
Release 1.2 of project foo
.
commit 3
directory foo-1.3
Release 1.3 of project foo
.
-----------------------------------
The main objective of the logfile design is to make hand-crafting
these easy.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 5/5] git-send-email: allow edit invalid email address
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-26 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Mazur
Cc: git, Felipe Contreras, Andreas Schwab, Felipe Balbi,
Tomi Valkeinen
In-Reply-To: <20121126233337.GA31100@shrek.podlesie.net>
Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> writes:
>>
>> >> Not having this new code inside "elsif (/^e/) { }" feels somewhat
>> >> sloppy, even though it is not *too* bad. Also do we know this
>> >
>> > ok, I will fix that.
>> >
>> >> function will never be used for addresses other than recipients' (I
>> >> gave a cursory look to see what is done to the $sender and it does
>> >> not seem to go through this function, tho)?
>> >
>> > Yes, this function is called only from validate_address_just()
>> > to filter @initial_to, @initial_cc, @bcc_list as early as possible,
>> > and filter @to and @cc added in each email.
>>
>> Thanks; when merged to 'pu', this series seems to break t9001. I'll
>> push the result out with breakages but could you take a look?
>>
>
> Sorry, I tested final version only on an ancient perl 5.8.8 and it really
> worked there. The third patch is broken:
>
> diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
> index 9996735..f3bbc16 100755
> --- a/git-send-email.perl
> +++ b/git-send-email.perl
> @@ -1472,7 +1472,7 @@ sub unique_email_list {
> my @emails;
>
> foreach my $entry (@_) {
> - my $clean = extract_valid_address_or_die($entry))
> + my $clean = extract_valid_address_or_die($entry);
Ah, ok, I wasn't looking closely enough. Thanks for a quick
turnaround. Will requeue and push out.
> $seen{$clean} ||= 0;
> next if $seen{$clean}++;
> push @emails, $entry;
>
> Krzysiek
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v6 p1.1 00/14] fast-export and remote-testgit improvements
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-26 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras
Cc: git, Jeff King, Johannes Sixt, Johannes Schindelin, Max Horn,
Sverre Rabbelier, Brandon Casey, Brandon Casey, Jonathan Nieder,
Ilari Liusvaara, Pete Wyckoff, Ben Walton, Matthieu Moy,
Julian Phillips
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3LR6T6H8z0LPJr7DHXde-JUoN9X4mWhju-5ECvG7wDpg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm rerolling this series with the changes fron Junio, plus a bit more cleanups.
>>>
>>> I dropped the last patch, because I found an issue and a separate patch series
>>> would take care of that. Other than that the main changes remain the same.
>>>
>>> The old remote-testgit is now remote-testpy (as it's testing the python
>>> framework, not really remote helpers). The tests are simplified, and exercise
>>> more features of transport-helper, and unsuprisingly, find more bugs.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I've queued [v6 p1.1] but not later parts (yet). The result merged
>> to 'pu' however seems to break t5800. It could be a stupid and
>> trivial merge error or something, but I didn't look into the
>> details.
>
> Yeah, the last patch triggers that. It should be moved to part2. The
> patch "fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs" should fix that,
> which is why I believe it should be applied first. Didn't I already
> say that?
You may have, but I am leaky ;-) as I am not 100% focused on this
series alone.
In the meantime, I'll drop the last one, push out the 'pu' branch
after rebuilding, and then revisit it when I queue the part 2.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Documentation/git-push.txt: fix typo in remote tracking branch path
From: Brandon Casey @ 2012-11-27 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, Brandon Casey, Brandon Casey
From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
This example in the documentation seems to be trying to describe the likely
remote tracking branch that will be updated by a push to the "origin" remote
with the destination branch 'satellite/master', but it forgot to specify
the remote name in the path specification.
So,
refs/remotes/satellite/master
should be spelled like
refs/remotes/origin/satellite/master
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com>
---
Documentation/git-push.txt | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index fe46c42..a18f929 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
@@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ the ones in the examples below) can be configured as the default for
`git push origin master:satellite/master dev:satellite/dev`::
Use the source ref that matches `master` (e.g. `refs/heads/master`)
to update the ref that matches `satellite/master` (most probably
- `refs/remotes/satellite/master`) in the `origin` repository, then
- do the same for `dev` and `satellite/dev`.
+ `refs/remotes/origin/satellite/master`) in the `origin` repository,
+ then do the same for `dev` and `satellite/dev`.
`git push origin HEAD:master`::
Push the current branch to the remote ref matching `master` in the
--
1.7.8.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-27 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121126234359.GA8042@thyrsus.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5609 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> Might be easier to just call 'git ls-files --with-three foo', but I
>> don't see the point of those calls:
>
> Ah, much is now explained. You were looking at an old version. I had
> in fact already fixed the subdirectories bug (I've updated my
> regression test to check) and have full support for branchy repos,
> preserving tags and branch heads.
So you are criticizing my code saying "it would then be almost
completely useless...", when this is in fact what you sent to the
list.
For the record, here is the output of a test with your script vs.
mine: the output is *exactly the same*:
---
== log ==
* afcbedc (tag: v0.2, master) bump
| * cbd2dce (devel) dev
|/
* 46f1813 (HEAD, test) remove
* df95e41 dot .
* ede0876 with
* d6f10fc extra
* e6362b1 (tag: v0.1) one
== files ==
file
== spaces ==
with
spaces
== dot ==
dot
.
== orig ref ==
refs/heads/test
== script ==
bc9a7d99132f97adeb5d2ca266bd3d8bc64ccb21 /home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt
Unpacking......(0.13 sec) done.
Packing......(0.28 sec) done.
== log ==
* 5d0b634 (HEAD, master) bump
* 2fe4a6d remove
* 0c27d3b dot .
* 5e36d3f with spaces
* d6f10fc extra
* e6362b1 one
== files ==
file
== spaces ==
with
spaces
== dot ==
dot
.
== orig ref ==
refs/heads/master
== script ==
33edcb28667b683fbb5f8782383f782f73c5e9e1 /home/felipec/bin/git-weave
== log ==
* afcbedc (HEAD, master) bump
* 46f1813 remove
* df95e41 dot .
* ede0876 with
* d6f10fc extra
* e6362b1 one
== files ==
file
== spaces ==
with
spaces
== dot ==
dot
.
== orig ref ==
refs/heads/test
---
Unfortunately, when I enable some testing stuff, this is what your
script throws:
---
== script ==
bc9a7d99132f97adeb5d2ca266bd3d8bc64ccb21 /home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt
Unpacking......(0.17 sec) done.
Packing......(0.02 sec) done.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt", line 308, in <module>
git_pack(indir, outdir, quiet=quiet)
File "/home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt", line 171, in git_pack
command += " ".join(map(lambda p: "-p " + commit_id[int(p)],parents))
File "/home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt", line 171, in <lambda>
command += " ".join(map(lambda p: "-p " + commit_id[int(p)],parents))
IndexError: list index out of range
== log ==
fatal: bad default revision 'HEAD'
== files ==
fatal: tree-ish master not found.
== spaces ==
fatal: ambiguous argument ':/with': unknown revision or path not in
the working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
== dot ==
fatal: ambiguous argument ':/dot': unknown revision or path not in the
working tree.
Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this:
'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
== orig ref ==
refs/heads/master
---
I'm attaching it in case you are interested.
Anyway, I can add support for branches and tags in no time, but I
wonder what's the point. Who will take so much time and effort to
generate all the branches and tags, and the log file?
If the goal is as you say "importing older projects that are available
only as sequences of release tarballs", then that code is overkill,
and it's not even making it easier to import the tarballs.
For that case my proposed format:
tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"
Would be much more suitable.
>> > It doesn't issue delete ops.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>>
>> out.puts 'deleteall' <- All current files are removed
>
> Yours emits no D ops for files removed after a particular snapshot.
man git fast-import
---
This command is extremely useful if the frontend does not know (or
does not care to know) what files are currently on the branch, and
therefore cannot generate the proper filedelete commands to update the
content.
---
Why would I want to emit D operations, again, deleteall takes care of that.
>> > Be aware, however, that I consider easy editability by human beings
>> > much more important than squeezing the last microsecond out of the
>> > processing time. So, for example, I won't use data byte counts rather
>> > than end delimiters, the way import streams do.
>>
>> Well, if there's a line with a single dot in the commit message ('.'),
>> things would go very bad.
>
> Apparently you missed the part where I byte-stuffed the message content.
> It's a technique used in a lot of old-school Internet protocols, notably
> in SMTP.
You might have done that, but the user that generated the log file
might have not.
>> Personally I would prefer something like this:
>
> There's a certain elegance to that, but it would be hard to generate by hand.
You think this is hard to generate by hand:
---
tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"
---
Than this?
---
commit 1
directory gst-av-0.1
Release 0.1
.
commit 2
directory gst-av-0.2
Release 0.2
.
commit 3
directory gst-av-0.3
Release 0.3
.
---
After of course, extracting the tarballs, which my script already does
automatically.
> Remember that a major use case for this tool is making repositories
> from projects whose back history exists only as tarballs.
Which is exactly what my script does, except even easier, because it
extracts the tarballs automatically.
> The main objective of the logfile design is to make hand-crafting
> these easy.
What does the above log file achieve, that my log file doesn't?
--
Felipe Contreras
[-- Attachment #2: test-gitpacker --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2534 bytes --]
#!/bin/sh
rm -rf test test-unpacked* test-new*
test_date=1
test_subdir=1
test_tick () {
if test -z "${test_tick+set}"
then
test_tick=1112911993
else
test "$test_date" -eq 1 || \
test_tick=$(($test_tick + 60))
fi
GIT_COMMITTER_DATE="$test_tick -0700"
GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$test_tick -0700"
export GIT_COMMITTER_DATE GIT_AUTHOR_DATE
}
(
git init -q test
cd test
echo one > file
git add file
test_tick
git commit -q -m one
git tag v0.1
echo extra > extra
git add extra
test_tick
git commit -q -m extra
echo spaces >> file
test_tick
git commit -q -a -m "$(echo -e "with\n\nspaces")"
echo dot >> file
test_tick
git commit -q -a -m "$(echo -e "dot\n.\n")"
if test "$test_subdir" -eq 1
then
mkdir subdir
echo subdir > subdir/file
git add subdir/file
test_tick
git commit -q -m dir
echo subdir2 >> file
test_tick
git commit -q -a -m subdir2
fi
git rm -q extra
test_tick
git commit -q -m remove
git checkout -q -b devel
echo dev >> file
test_tick
git commit -q -a -m dev
git checkout -q master
echo bump >> file
test_tick
git commit -q -a -m bump
git tag v0.2
git checkout -q -b test master^
echo "== log =="
git log --oneline --graph --decorate --all
echo "== files =="
git ls-files --with-tree master
echo "== spaces =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/with
echo "== dot =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/dot
)
echo "== orig ref =="
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/test
script="/home/felipec/Downloads/gitpacker.txt"
echo
echo "== script =="
sha1sum $script
$PYTHON_PATH $script -x -i test -o test-unpacked-1
$PYTHON_PATH $script -c -i test-unpacked-1 -o test-new-1
(
cd test-new-1
echo "== log =="
git log --oneline --graph --decorate --all
echo "== files =="
git ls-files --with-tree master
echo "== spaces =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/with
echo "== dot =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/dot
)
echo "== orig ref =="
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/test
script="$HOME/bin/git-weave"
echo
echo "== script =="
sha1sum $script
$script -x -i test -o test-unpacked-2
$script -c -i test-unpacked-2 -o test-new-2
(
cd test-new-2
echo "== log =="
git log --oneline --graph --decorate --all
echo "== files =="
git ls-files --with-tree master
echo "== spaces =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/with
echo "== dot =="
git show --quiet --format='%B' :/dot
)
echo "== orig ref =="
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD
git --git-dir=test/.git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/test
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-push.txt: fix typo in remote tracking branch path
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-11-27 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Casey; +Cc: git, Brandon Casey
In-Reply-To: <1353977748-17110-1-git-send-email-bcasey@nvidia.com>
Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com> writes:
> From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
>
> This example in the documentation seems to be trying to describe the likely
> remote tracking branch that will be updated by a push to the "origin" remote
> with the destination branch 'satellite/master', but it forgot to specify
> the remote name in the path specification.
>
> So,
>
> refs/remotes/satellite/master
>
> should be spelled like
>
> refs/remotes/origin/satellite/master
I might make sense to rename 'origin' to 'mothership' in that
example and explain that this is emulating 'git fetch' run on the
mothership to integrate the work done on 'satellite' using 'git
push' in the opposite direction, which is often necessary when you
can only make connection in one way (i.e. satellite can ssh into
mothership but mothership cannot initiate connection to satellite
because the latter is behind a firewall or does not run sshd).
If you were to run 'git fetch' on the mothership to intgrate the
work on the 'satellite', it would have a remote called 'satellite',
and would keep remote-tracking branches for the branches local to
'satellite' in the 'refs/remotes/satellite/' hierarchy. You would
push your local 'master' to their 'refs/remotes/satellite/master',
to emulate 'git fetch' done on the mothership in the reverse
direction.
So refs are correct. The context is not sufficiently explained.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com>
> ---
> Documentation/git-push.txt | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> index fe46c42..a18f929 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
> @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ the ones in the examples below) can be configured as the default for
> `git push origin master:satellite/master dev:satellite/dev`::
> Use the source ref that matches `master` (e.g. `refs/heads/master`)
> to update the ref that matches `satellite/master` (most probably
> - `refs/remotes/satellite/master`) in the `origin` repository, then
> - do the same for `dev` and `satellite/dev`.
> + `refs/remotes/origin/satellite/master`) in the `origin` repository,
> + then do the same for `dev` and `satellite/dev`.
>
> `git push origin HEAD:master`::
> Push the current branch to the remote ref matching `master` in the
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-27 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3HAzSPsrGwcpQpx_3n2aHK5wm++_7_Cbk3qRWMkxDh6g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually no, they are not exactly the same, your version has a bug
when dealing with spaces in a commit message (which pretty much all
proper multi-line commit messages have).
> == spaces ==
> with
> spaces
>
Mine doesn't:
> == spaces ==
> with
>
> spaces
>
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Documentation: improve phrasing in git-push.txt
From: Mark Szepieniec @ 2012-11-27 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Mark Szepieniec
The current version contains the sentence:
Further suppose that the other person already pushed changes leading to
A back to the original repository you two obtained the original commit
X.
which doesn't parse for me; I've changed it to
Further suppose that the other person already pushed changes leading to
A back to the original repository from which you two obtained the
original commit X.
Signed-off-by: Mark Szepieniec <mszepien@gmail.com>
---
Documentation/git-push.txt | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index fe46c42..6d19d59 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt
@@ -286,7 +286,8 @@ leading to commit A. The history looks like this:
----------------
Further suppose that the other person already pushed changes leading to A
-back to the original repository you two obtained the original commit X.
+back to the original repository from which you two obtained the original
+commit X.
The push done by the other person updated the branch that used to point at
commit X to point at commit A. It is a fast-forward.
--
1.7.5.4
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-push.txt: fix typo in remote tracking branch path
From: Brandon Casey @ 2012-11-27 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Brandon Casey
In-Reply-To: <7vy5hnomsl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 11/26/2012 5:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Casey <bcasey@nvidia.com> writes:
>
>> From: Brandon Casey <drafnel@gmail.com>
>>
>> This example in the documentation seems to be trying to describe the likely
>> remote tracking branch that will be updated by a push to the "origin" remote
>> with the destination branch 'satellite/master', but it forgot to specify
>> the remote name in the path specification.
>>
>> So,
>>
>> refs/remotes/satellite/master
>>
>> should be spelled like
>>
>> refs/remotes/origin/satellite/master
>
> I might make sense to rename 'origin' to 'mothership' in that
> example and explain that this is emulating 'git fetch' run on the
> mothership to integrate the work done on 'satellite' using 'git
> push' in the opposite direction, which is often necessary when you
> can only make connection in one way (i.e. satellite can ssh into
> mothership but mothership cannot initiate connection to satellite
> because the latter is behind a firewall or does not run sshd).
>
> If you were to run 'git fetch' on the mothership to intgrate the
> work on the 'satellite', it would have a remote called 'satellite',
> and would keep remote-tracking branches for the branches local to
> 'satellite' in the 'refs/remotes/satellite/' hierarchy. You would
> push your local 'master' to their 'refs/remotes/satellite/master',
> to emulate 'git fetch' done on the mothership in the reverse
> direction.
>
> So refs are correct. The context is not sufficiently explained.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I think that is complex enough to merit an
extended explanation.
-Brandon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/7] push: return reject reasons via a mask
From: Chris Rorvick @ 2012-11-27 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Angelo Borsotti, Drew Northup, Michael Haggerty,
Philip Oakley, Johannes Sixt, Kacper Kornet, Jeff King,
Felipe Contreras
In-Reply-To: <7vobikryrc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com> writes:
>
>> Pass all rejection reasons back from transport_push(). The logic is
>> simpler and more flexible with regard to providing useful feedback.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
>> ---
>
> In any case, naming it as "reject_mask" is like calling a counter as
> "counter_int". It is more important to name it after its purpose
> than after its type
Agreed.
> and because this is to record the reasons why
> the push was rejected, "rejection_reason" might be a better name for
> it.
Yes, that is better for all the reasons you mention. I will fix this up.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: clarify rejection of update to non-commit-ish
From: Chris Rorvick @ 2012-11-27 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Angelo Borsotti, Drew Northup, Michael Haggerty,
Philip Oakley, Johannes Sixt, Kacper Kornet, Jeff King,
Felipe Contreras
In-Reply-To: <7vk3t8ryap.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com> writes:
>
>> Pushes must already (by default) update to a commit-ish due the fast-
>> forward check in set_ref_status_for_push(). But rejecting for not being
>> a fast-forward suggests the situation can be resolved with a merge.
>> Flag these updates (i.e., to a blob or a tree) as not forwardable so the
>> user is presented with more appropriate advice.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
>> ---
>> remote.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
>> index f5bc4e7..ee0c1e5 100644
>> --- a/remote.c
>> +++ b/remote.c
>> @@ -1291,6 +1291,11 @@ static inline int is_forwardable(struct ref* ref)
>> if (!o || o->type != OBJ_COMMIT)
>> return 0;
>>
>> + /* new object must be commit-ish */
>> + o = deref_tag(parse_object(ref->new_sha1), NULL, 0);
>> + if (!o || o->type != OBJ_COMMIT)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> I think the original code used ref_newer() which took commit-ish on
> both sides.
That is still called later in set_ref_status_for_push() to calculate
the nonfastforward flag. The only reason for even checking the new
here is to exclude trees and blobs now so they are flagged as
already-existing and thus avoid nonsensical fetch-and-merge advice.
Otherwise the behavior is unchanged by this last patch.
ref_newer() does end up redoing computation now done in the new
is_forwardable() function. I could probably factor this out of
ref_newer() into a commit_newer() function that could be reused in
set_ref_status_for_push() to avoid this overhead, but it didn't seem
like a big deal. Thoughts?
> With this code, the old must be a commit but new can be a tag that
> points at a commit? Why?
The old must not be a tag because fast-forwarding from it is
potentially destructive; a tag would likely be left dangling in this
case. This is not true for the new, though. I'm not sure
fast-forwarding from a commit to a tag is useful, but I didn't see a
reason to prevent it either. The refs/tags/ hierarchy is excluded
from fast-forwarding before this check, and refs/heads/ is already
protected against anything but commits. So it seems very unlikely
that someone would accidentally make use of this behavior.
So, fast-forwarding to a tag seemed fairly benign and unlikely to
cause confusion, so I leaned towards allowing it in case someone found
a use case for it.
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] Support for git aliasing for tcsh completion
From: Marc Khouzam @ 2012-11-27 4:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git, Felipe Contreras, SZEDER Gábor; +Cc: Tuncer Ayaz
In-Reply-To: <1353989472-4142-1-git-send-email-marc.khouzam@gmail.com>
tcsh users sometimes alias the 'git' command to another name. In
this case, the user expects to only have to issue a new 'complete'
command using the alias name.
However, the tcsh script currently uses the command typed by the
user to call the appropriate function in git-completion.bash, either
_git() or _gitk(). When using an alias, this technique no longer
works.
This change specifies the real name of the command (either 'git' or
'gitk') as a parameter to the script handling tcsh completion. This
allows the user to use any alias for the 'git' or 'gitk' commands,
while still getting completion to work.
A check for the presence of ${HOME}/.git-completion.bash is also
added to help the user make use of the script properly.
Signed-off-by: Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com>
---
This issue was reported by someone already making use of the tcsh
completion script.
Thanks for considering this fix.
Marc
contrib/completion/git-completion.tcsh | 19 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.tcsh
b/contrib/completion/git-completion.tcsh
index dc5678c..44bd544 100644
--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.tcsh
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.tcsh
@@ -23,6 +23,12 @@
set __git_tcsh_completion_original_script = ${HOME}/.git-completion.bash
set __git_tcsh_completion_script = ${HOME}/.git-completion.tcsh.bash
+# Check that the user put the script in the right place
+if ( ! -e ${__git_tcsh_completion_original_script} ) then
+ echo "git-completion.tcsh: Cannot find:
${__git_tcsh_completion_original_script}. Git completion will not work."
+ exit
+endif
+
cat << EOF > ${__git_tcsh_completion_script}
#!bash
#
@@ -34,13 +40,13 @@ cat << EOF > ${__git_tcsh_completion_script}
source ${__git_tcsh_completion_original_script}
# Set COMP_WORDS in a way that can be handled by the bash script.
-COMP_WORDS=(\$1)
+COMP_WORDS=(\$2)
# The cursor is at the end of parameter #1.
# We must check for a space as the last character which will
# tell us that the previous word is complete and the cursor
# is on the next word.
-if [ "\${1: -1}" == " " ]; then
+if [ "\${2: -1}" == " " ]; then
# The last character is a space, so our location is at the end
# of the command-line array
COMP_CWORD=\${#COMP_WORDS[@]}
@@ -51,13 +57,12 @@ else
COMP_CWORD=\$((\${#COMP_WORDS[@]}-1))
fi
-# Call _git() or _gitk() of the bash script, based on the first
-# element of the command-line
-_\${COMP_WORDS[0]}
+# Call _git() or _gitk() of the bash script, based on the first argument
+_\${1}
IFS=\$'\n'
echo "\${COMPREPLY[*]}" | sort | uniq
EOF
-complete git 'p/*/`bash ${__git_tcsh_completion_script}
"${COMMAND_LINE}"`/'
-complete gitk 'p/*/`bash ${__git_tcsh_completion_script}
"${COMMAND_LINE}"`/'
+complete git 'p/*/`bash ${__git_tcsh_completion_script} git
"${COMMAND_LINE}"`/'
+complete gitk 'p/*/`bash ${__git_tcsh_completion_script} gitk
"${COMMAND_LINE}"`/'
--
1.8.0.1.g9fe2839
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH 5/7] push: require force for refs under refs/tags/
From: Chris Rorvick @ 2012-11-27 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Angelo Borsotti, Drew Northup, Michael Haggerty,
Philip Oakley, Johannes Sixt, Kacper Kornet, Jeff King,
Felipe Contreras
In-Reply-To: <7vfw3wry4d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
>> index 4a6f822..012b52f 100644
>> --- a/remote.c
>> +++ b/remote.c
>> @@ -1315,14 +1315,18 @@ void set_ref_status_for_push(struct ref *remote_refs, int send_mirror,
>> *
>> * (1) if the old thing does not exist, it is OK.
>> *
>> - * (2) if you do not have the old thing, you are not allowed
>> + * (2) if the destination is under refs/tags/ you are
>> + * not allowed to overwrite it; tags are expected
>> + * to be static once created
>> + *
>> + * (3) if you do not have the old thing, you are not allowed
>> * to overwrite it; you would not know what you are losing
>> * otherwise.
>> *
>> - * (3) if both new and old are commit-ish, and new is a
>> + * (4) if both new and old are commit-ish, and new is a
>> * descendant of old, it is OK.
>> *
>> - * (4) regardless of all of the above, removing :B is
>> + * (5) regardless of all of the above, removing :B is
>> * always allowed.
>> */
>
> We may want to reword (0) to make it clear that --force
> (and +A:B) can be used to defeat all the other rules.
On that note, having (5) be "regardless of all of the above ..." seems
a little awkward. That would seem to fit better towards the top.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Interesting git-format-patch bug
From: Perry Hutchison @ 2012-11-27 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gitster; +Cc: git, alan.r.olsen
In-Reply-To: <7vobikotwd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Olsen, Alan R" <alan.r.olsen@intel.com> writes:
> > I found an interesting bug in git-format-patch.
> >
> > Say you have a branch A. You create branch B and add a patch to
> > it. You then merge that patch into branch A. After the merge,
> > some other process (we will call it 'gerrit') uses annotate and
> > changes the comment on the patch that exists on branch B.
> >
> > Now someone runs git-format-patch for the last n patches on
> > branch A. You should just get the original patch that was
> > merged over to branch A. What you get is the patch that was
> > merged to branch A *and* the patch with the modified commit
> > comment on branch B. (Double the patches, double the
> > clean-up...)
>
> As you literally have patches that do essentially the same or
> similar things on two branches that was merged, you cannot
> expect to export each individual commit into a patch and not
> have conflicts among them. So I do not think there is no
> answer than "don't do that".
To me, this seems to miss Alan's point: only one patch was merged
to branch A, so git-format-patch applied to branch A should find
only one patch. It can be argued either way whether that one-patch
report should include the gerrit annotations, but surely the
application of gerrit on branch B, _after the merge to branch A
has already been performed_, should not cause an additional patch
to magically appear on branch A.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: difftool -d symlinks, under what conditions
From: David Aguilar @ 2012-11-27 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt McClure; +Cc: git, Tim Henigan
In-Reply-To: <CAJELnLGq_oLBiNHANoaE7iEiA6g4fXX0PtJbqPFi4PQ+5LLvnA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Matt McClure
<matthewlmcclure@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm finding the behavior of `git difftool -d` surprising. It seems that it
> only uses symlinks to the working copy for files that are modified in the
> working copy since the most recent commit. I would have expected it to use
> symlinks for all files whose version under comparison is the working copy
> version, regardless of whether the working copy differs from the HEAD.
>
> I'm using
>
> $ git --version
> git version 1.8.0
>
> on a Mac from Homebrew.
cc:ing Tim since he probably remembers this feature.
This is a side-effect of how it's currently implemented,
and the general-purpose nature of the "diff" command.
diff can also be used for diffing arbitrary commits.
The simplest way to implement that is to create two temporary
directories containing "a/" and "b/" and then launch the tool
against them. That's what difftool does; it creates a temporary
index and uses `git checkout-index` to populate these two dirs.
The worktree handling is a bolt-on that symlinks
(or copies (on windows or with --no-symlinks)) modified
worktree files into one of these temporary directories.
When symlinks are used (the default) we avoid needing to
copy these files back into the worktree; we can blindly
remove the temporary directories without checking whether
the tool edited any files.
When copies are used we check their content for changes
before deciding to copy them back into the worktree.
Files that are not modified are not considered part of the
set of files to check when copying back, or when symlinking,
mostly because that's just how it's implemented right now.
It seems that there is an edge case here that we are not
accounting for: unmodified worktree paths, when checked out
into the temporary directory, can be edited by the tool when
comparing against older commits. These edits will be lost.
If we had a way to know that either a/ or b/ can be replaced
with the worktree itself then we could make it even simpler.
Right now we don't because difftool barely parses the
command-line at all; most of it is parsed by git-diff.
Originally, difftool was a read-only tool so it was able to
avoid needing to know too much about what diff is really doing.
We would need to a way to re-use git's diff command-line parsing
logic to answer: "is the worktree involved in this diff invocation?"
When we can do that then we avoid needing to have a temporary
directory altogether for any dir-diffs that involve the worktree.
Does anyone know of a good way to answer that question?
The input is the command-line provided to diff/difftool.
The output is one of ('a', 'b', 'x'), where 'a' means the left
side of the diff is the worktree, 'b' means the right side,
and 'x' means neither (e.g. the command-line contains two refs).
Assuming we can do this, it would also make dir-diff faster
since we can avoid needing to checkout the entire tree for
that side of the diff.
--
David
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-27 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121126234359.GA8042@thyrsus.com>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> -----------------------------------
> commit 1
> directory foo-1.1
>
> Release 1.1 of project foo
> .
> commit 2
> directory foo-1.2
>
> ..This is an example of a byte-stuffed line.
>
> Release 1.2 of project foo
> .
> commit 3
> directory foo-1.3
>
> Release 1.3 of project foo
> .
> -----------------------------------
>
> The main objective of the logfile design is to make hand-crafting
> these easy.
Here's another version with YAML:
---
-
author: &me Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
date: 2011-1-1
msg: one
- tag v0.1
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-2
msg: extra
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-3
msg: |
with
spaces
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-4
msg: |
dot
.
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-5
msg: remove
ref: remove
- checkout devel
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-6
msg: dev
- checkout master
-
author: *me
date: 2011-1-7
msg: bump
- tag v0.2
- checkout test remove
---
I believe that log file is much more human readable. Yet I still fail
to see why would anybody want so much detail only to import tarballs.
diff --git a/contrib/weave/git-weave b/contrib/weave/git-weave
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..646aeaa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/contrib/weave/git-weave
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env ruby
+
+require 'optparse'
+require 'find'
+require 'fileutils'
+require 'yaml'
+
+$last = nil
+$branches = {}
+$branch = 'master'
+$refs = {}
+
+class Commit
+
+ attr_reader :id, :parents, :author, :committer, :date, :msg, :ref
+
+ @@num = 0
+
+ def initialize(args)
+ @id = @@num += 1
+ @parents = []
+ args.each do |key, value|
+ instance_variable_set("@#{key}", value)
+ end
+ if @author =~ /(.+ <.+>) (.+)/
+ @author = $1
+ end
+ if @committer =~ /(.+ <.+>) (.+)/
+ @committer = $1
+ @date = DateTime.strptime($2, '%s %z')
+ end
+ $refs[@ref] = @id if @ref
+ end
+
+end
+
+def export_commit(cmd, indir, out)
+
+ c = Commit.new(cmd)
+ $last = c.id
+
+ # commit
+ out.puts 'commit refs/heads/%s' % $branch
+ out.puts 'mark :%u' % c.id
+ if c.author and c.committer
+ out.puts 'author %s %s' % [c.author, c.date.strftime('%s %z')]
+ out.puts 'committer %s %s' % [c.committer, c.date.strftime('%s %z')]
+ else
+ out.puts 'committer %s %s' % [c.author, c.date.strftime('%s %z')]
+ end
+ out.puts 'data %u' % c.msg.bytesize
+ out.puts c.msg
+
+ # parents
+ c.parents.each_with_index do |p, i|
+ ref = $refs[p]
+ if i == 0
+ out.puts 'from :%u' % ref
+ else
+ out.puts 'merge :%u' % ref
+ end
+ end
+
+ # files
+ out.puts 'deleteall'
+ FileUtils.cd(File.join(indir, c.id.to_s)) do
+ Find.find('.') do |e|
+ next unless File.file?(e)
+ content = File.read(e)
+ filename = e.split(File::SEPARATOR).slice(1..-1).join(File::SEPARATOR)
+ if File.symlink?(e)
+ mode = '120000'
+ content = File.readlink(e)
+ else
+ mode = File.executable?(e) ? '100755' : '100644'
+ end
+ out.puts 'M %s inline %s' % [mode, filename]
+ out.puts 'data %u' % content.bytesize
+ out.puts content
+ end
+ end
+ out.puts
+
+end
+
+def do_reset(out, ref, from)
+ out.puts "reset %s" % ref
+ out.puts "from :%u" % from
+ out.puts
+end
+
+def export_reset(cmd, indir, out)
+ _, ref, from = cmd.split
+ do_reset(out, ref, from)
+end
+
+def export_checkout(cmd, indir, out)
+ _, $branch, from = cmd.split
+ from = ':%u' % $last if not $branches[$branch]
+ do_reset(out, 'refs/heads/%s' % $branch, from) if from
+ $branches[$branch] = true
+end
+
+def export_tag(cmd, indir, out)
+ _, tag = cmd.split
+ do_reset(out, 'refs/tags/%s' % tag, $last)
+end
+
+def export(indir = '.', out = STDOUT)
+
+ $branches['master'] = true
+
+ YAML.load_file(File.join(indir, 'log')).each do |e|
+ case e
+ when Hash
+ export_commit(e, indir, out)
+ when /^checkout /
+ export_checkout(e, indir, out)
+ when /^tag /
+ export_tag(e, indir, out)
+ when /^reset /
+ export_reset(e, indir, out)
+ end
+ end
+
+end
+
+def import(outdir, out)
+ format = 'format:commit %H%nauthor %an <%ae> %ad%ncommitter %cn
<%ce> %cd%nparents %P%n%n%B'
+ cmd = ['git', 'log', '-z', '-s', '--date=raw', '--format=%s' %
format, '--reverse', '--all']
+ commits = {}
+
+ cmds = []
+
+ IO.popen(cmd).each_with_index("\0") do |data, i|
+ @msg = nil
+ @parents = []
+ data.chomp("\0").each_line do |l|
+ if not @msg
+ case l
+ when /^commit (.+)$/
+ @id = $1
+ when /^author (.+)$/
+ @author = $1
+ when /^committer (.+)$/
+ @committer = $1
+ when /^parents (.+)$/
+ @parents = $1.split(" ")
+ when /^$/
+ @msg = ""
+ end
+ else
+ @msg << l
+ end
+ end
+
+ num = i + 1
+ commits[@id] = num
+
+ cmds << {
+ :author => @author,
+ :committer => @committer,
+ :msg => @msg,
+ :ref => num,
+ :parents => @parents.map { |e| commits[e] },
+ }
+
+ wd = File.join(outdir, num.to_s)
+ FileUtils.mkdir_p(wd)
+ system('git', '--work-tree', wd, 'checkout', '-f', '-q', @id)
+ end
+
+ IO.popen(['git', 'show-ref', '--tags', '--heads']).each do |e|
+ id, ref = e.chomp.split
+ cmds << 'reset %s %s' % [ref, commits[id]]
+ end
+
+ out.write(cmds.to_yaml)
+end
+
+def git_pack(indir, outdir)
+ indir = File.absolute_path(indir)
+ system('git', 'init', '--quiet', outdir)
+ FileUtils.cd(outdir) do
+ IO.popen(['git', 'fast-import', '--quiet'], 'w') do |io|
+ export(indir, io)
+ end
+ system('git', 'reset', '--quiet', '--hard')
+ end
+end
+
+def git_unpack(indir, outdir)
+ begin
+ FileUtils.mkdir_p(outdir)
+ log = File.open(File.join(outdir, 'log'), 'w')
+ ENV['GIT_DIR'] = File.join(indir, '.git')
+ oldref = %x[git symbolic-ref HEAD]
+ import(outdir, log)
+ ensure
+ system('git', 'symbolic-ref', 'HEAD', oldref) if oldref
+ ENV.delete('GIT_DIR')
+ log.close if log
+ end
+end
+
+$indir = '.'
+
+begin
+ OptionParser.new do |opts|
+ opts.on('-x') do
+ $mode = 'unpack'
+ end
+ opts.on('-c') do
+ $mode = 'pack'
+ end
+ opts.on('-o', '--outdir DIR') do |v|
+ $outdir = v
+ end
+ opts.on('-i', '--indir DIR') do |v|
+ $indir = v
+ end
+ end.parse!
+rescue OptionParser::InvalidOption
+end
+
+$mode = File.exists?(File.join($indir, '.git')) ? 'unpack' : 'pack'
unless $mode
+$outdir = File.join($indir, $mode == 'pack' ? 'packed' : 'unpacked2')
unless $outdir
+
+case $mode
+when 'pack'
+ git_pack($indir, $outdir)
+when 'unpack'
+ git_unpack($indir, $outdir)
+end
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-27 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3=VpMv-S2eV9rXRaH9U3SvaR8B6Dto=vAmVQ_XB1uBXg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> I believe that log file is much more human readable. Yet I still fail
> to see why would anybody want so much detail only to import tarballs.
The first time I needed such a tool (and I really should have built it then)
was during the events I wrote up in 2010 the INTERCAL Reconstruction Massacree;
full story at <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2491> Note in particular the
following paragraphs:
Reconstructing the history of C-INTERCAL turned out to be something of
an epic in itself. 1990 was back in the Dark Ages as far as version
control and release-management practices go; our tools were
paleolithic and our procedures likewise. The earliest versions of
C-INTERCAL were so old that even CVS wasn’t generally available yet
(CVS 1.0 didn’t even ship until six months after C-INTERCAL 0.3, my
first public release). SCCS had existed since the early 1980s but was
proprietary; the only game in town was RCS. Primitive, file-oriented
RCS.
I was a very early adopter of version control; when I wrote
Emacs’s VC mode in 1992 the idea of integrating version control
into normal workflow that closely was way out in front of current
practice. Today’s routine use of such tools wasn’t even a gleam in
anyone’s eye then, if only because disks were orders of magnitude
smaller and there was a lot of implied pressure to actually throw
away old versions of stuff. So I only RCSed some of the files in
the project at the time, and didn’t think much about that.
As a result, reconstructing C-INTERCAL’s history turned into about two
weeks of work. A good deal of it was painstaking digital archeology,
digging into obscure corners of the net for ancient release tarballs
Alex and I didn’t have on hand any more. I ended up stitching together
material from 18 different release tarballs, 11 unreleased snapshot
tarballs, one release tarball I could reconstruct, one release tarball
mined out of an obsolete Red Hat source RPM, two shar archives, a pax
archive, five published patches, two zip files, a darcs archive, and
my partial RCS history, and that’s before we got to the aerial
photography. To perform the surgery needed to integrate this, I wrote
a custom Python program assisted by two shellscripts, topping out at a
hair over 1200 lines of code.
The second time was much more recent and concerned a project called
(seriously) robotfindskitten. This code existed as a partial CVS
repository created by someone other than the original author,
and some disconnected tarballs from before the repo. The author
has requested that I knit the tarballs and the CVS history (which
is now in git) into one repository.
In both cases the object was to assemble a coherent history
from all the available metadata as if the projects had been using
version control all along.
I know of at least one other group of disconnected tarballs, of a
program called xlife, that is likely to need similar treatment. It's
not an uncommon situation for projects over a certain age, and there is
lots of code like xlife dating from before the mid-1990s waiting for
someone to pick up the pieces.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-27 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3=VpMv-S2eV9rXRaH9U3SvaR8B6Dto=vAmVQ_XB1uBXg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> > The main objective of the logfile design is to make hand-crafting
> > these easy.
>
> Here's another version with YAML:
Clever.
Now I have to decide if I should allow my aesthetic dislike of YAML to
prevail despite the fact that it's pretty well suited to this job. There
is definitely a case for applying a standard metaprotocol like YAML (ugh)
or XML (double ugh).
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Python extension commands in git - request for policy change
From: David Aguilar @ 2012-11-27 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: esr, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy, git, msysGit
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2FcrjDhNzond=Rzmn5QOBnZbQC1d73ZmKNeyCRvJNvyA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I don't agree that the project would be better off with something
> else, if it was, somebody would have proposed an alternative by now,
> but there aren't any. I have tried gitg, and giggle, and I have even
> contributed to them, but they are just not as good and useful as plain
> old gitk, I always keep coming back.
>
> gitk:
> * is blazing fast to start
> * doesn't have a lot of dependencies: just tcl/tk
> * works on Windows without a major fuzz
> * is actively maintained
> * shows a proper graph (unlike gitg or giggle)
>
> Now, show me an alternative that fulfills all these points. And I'm
> pretty sure you won't find one, because if you did, it would have been
> already proposed for mainline git... there isn't any. And if you did,
> we would start with oh, but it's GTK+, or it's Qt, and how do you make
> it work on Windows. No, gitk is just fine, and works great.
>
> Tcl/Tk might not be your cup of tea, and indeed it's rather unmodern,
> but that only tells you how an awful job the modern toolkits have done
> with regards to portability and flexibility.
>
> You were arguing for portability, well, Tcl/Tk works on all platforms,
> here, have a look, there's no other tool that fulfills this:
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Git/Graphical_User_Interfaces
*cough* git-cola *cough*
it runs everywhere. Yes, windows too. It's written in python.
It's been actively maintained since 2007.
It's "modern" and has features that don't exist anywhere else.
It even has tests. It even comes with a building full of willing
guinea-pigs^Wtesters that let me know right away when
anything goes wrong.
It uses Qt but that's really the whole point of Qt -> cross-platform.
(not sure how that wiki page ended up saying Gnome/GTK?)
The DAG aka git-dag (in its master branch, about to be released)
is nicer looking then gitk IMO. gitk still has some features
that are better too--there's no silver bullet, but the delta
is pretty small.
The only point this doesn't fulfill is dependency-free-ness.
With that requirement the answer can *only* be tcl/tk.
So saying, "go look for one you won't find it" is really
a tautology. It's not even an entertaining one.
http://xkcd.com/703/
When the requirement is, "what is the best user experience
possible", then you use a mature GUI library. These are different
requirements and probably different use cases. For the gitk use
case, gitk is the perfect tool.
Anyways, just sayin', you make it sound like this stuff doesn't
exist, but it does. I've never proposed it for mainline
git because I'm very aware of the dependency requirements.
But, if git "recommended" it I would very much appreciate the
extra eyes and contributions. Being in mainline git could
possibly help with that. A submodule under contrib/
would be an interesting experiment.
In any case, I think documenting the python standards
(even if within contrib/ only) is a good thing.
We'd be increasing the overall portability by documenting
what we support and sticking to it, just
like what is done for shell scripts and perl versions.
Eric is helping make that happen, let's not throw
out the baby with the bathwater. FWIW, I would also make
my python expertise available.
This thread has gotten into meta-meta territory --
it's discussing code that has not yet even been written,
and going off on all sorts of tangents.
Let's stay on target. I think bringing up python
as an extension language would help in a these key areas:
- There are a few python modules floating around that
are similar to the ruby grit library. Having an official
python module would be good.
- Commands on the edges of the git experience (GUIs,
import/export/etc) can benefit from python. git-p4
is one example. git-weave is another.
Are there any arguments against it for these use cases?
BTW, Felipe, if you're going to be rewriting python code to ruby,
please, pretty please rewrite that darn GUI ;-)
You can call it "git-new-cola: project kansas"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
I expect a patch by the morning ;-p
I kid, of course, but if you do pull it off I WILL buy you a soda-pop!
--
David
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-11-27 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: esr; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20121127072700.GA23169@thyrsus.com>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> I believe that log file is much more human readable. Yet I still fail
>> to see why would anybody want so much detail only to import tarballs.
> In both cases the object was to assemble a coherent history
> from all the available metadata as if the projects had been using
> version control all along.
I didn't say I couldn't see why somebody would need such a tool, I
said I couldn't see why somebody would need such a tool _with so much
detail_.
Most of those old projects have a linear history, so a log file like
this would suffice:
tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"
And if they really had release branches, it shouldn't be difficult to
modify it for:
tag v0.1 gst-av-0.1.tar "Release 0.1"
tag v0.2 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2"
tag v0.2.1 gst-av-0.2.tar "Release 0.2.1"
checkout v0.2
tag v0.3 gst-av-0.3.tar "Release 0.3"
But different commit/author and respective dates, and merges? Sounds
like overkill.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitpacker progress report and a question
From: Eric S. Raymond @ 2012-11-27 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1=sjWypEN3zzC=aPqZYnBFU0C+Dhrh3zj=jY57PHJ6wg@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> Most of those old projects have a linear history,
INTERCAL didn't. There were two branches for platform ports.
> But different commit/author and respective dates, and merges? Sounds
> like overkill.
I felt it was important that the metadata format be able to specify
git's entire metadata and DAG semantics. Otherwise, as sure as the
sun rises, *somebody* would run into a corner case not covered, and
(quite rightly) curse me for a shortsighted fool who had done a
half-assed job.
I don't do half-assed jobs. Not ever, no way, nohow.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH 0/4] t4041 (diff-submodule-option): minor cleanup
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra @ 2012-11-27 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git List
Hi,
This is the result of one lazy afternoon.
Ram
Ramkumar Ramachandra (4):
t4041 (diff-submodule-option): parse digests sensibly
t4041 (diff-submodule-option): rewrite add_file() routine
t4041 (diff-submodule-option): modernize style
t4041 (diff-submodule-option): change tense of test names
t/t4041-diff-submodule-option.sh | 484 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
--
1.7.8.1.362.g5d6df.dirty
^ 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