* Re: ignore blank line removals
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-11-15 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Rood; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <CALj-rGdRDa0EU6AeMHWYketr5QBOnV7-3RKraiuPCk=Aepz=pQ@mail.gmail.com>
John Rood <mr.john.rood@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Rood <mr.john.rood@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the contents of a file initially are:
>> one
>>
>> three
>> and on branch A there is a commit, removing the blank line:
>> one
>> three
>> and on branch B there is a commit, adding 'two':
>> one
>> two
>> three
>> Normally, if you try to merge A into B (or B into A), git recognizes a
>> decision needs to be made between removing the second line or add
>> "two" to the second line. It would be convenient to have a merge
>> strategy that defaults to the latter in cases where the removed line
>> was a blank line (or a line containing only whitespace) ...something
>> like -Xignore-blank-line-removals.
>
> Is there any push-back on this, or is there a backlog that we can add
> this feature to?
If you mean by "push-back" objections that say "this feature is evil
and should not be added to Git, ever", I do not think we saw any on
the list. The lack of response is most likely that everybody
thought "Meh." aka "It is not useful/interesting/valuable enough
feature to bother discussing."
One thing I wondered was what you would want if the contents were
one/three without blank, A added blank between the two and B
replaced blank with two. As your example shows, in the filetype you
are dealing with, a blank line has no significant meaning (otherwise
you won't be ignoring the change A made to remove the blank in your
original example). The outcome desired by you may be one/two/three
without any blank in that case because of that. Which would lead to
the suspicion that ignore-blank-line-removals is not a good general
feature (i.e. in this other example, you want to ignore blank line
addition). Which further leads to the suspicion that the desire you
expressed in the original post is not well thought through to be a
useful specifification to build anything out of (yet), but is merely
a potentially interesting discussion starter. And nobody so far
found it interesting enough to spend time discussing it further to
make the wish detailed enough to be called a "design" of a new
feature.
Having said all that.
I suspect that you may not have to make any change to Git to do what
you want; can't you just use the 'merge' attribute with a custom
3-way merge driver that removes an empty line?
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-11-15 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Schneider; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <5BC69AC1-5499-4F73-816A-D8786106D796@gmail.com>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15 Nov 2016, at 02:03, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
>
> > Anyways, I'll plan on doing something similar (in Perl) with the
> > synchronous parts of public-inbox which relies on "cat-file --batch"
> > at some point... (my rotational disks are sloooooooow :<)
>
> That sounds interesting! What changes to you have in mind for
> "cat-file --batch"? We are thinking about performance improvements
> in that area, too. I would be happy to help reviewing your patches!
I'm not touching "cat-file --batch" itself, just the Perl code
that uses it. (still trying my best to avoid working on C or
any compiled languages);
There'll probably be a Perl queue mechanism so there's still
only one cat-file process running per-inbox to avoid overloading
on seeks; but the Perl daemons should be able to handle network
duties and other in-memory operations while it waits for
cat-file.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: gitweb html validation
From: Ralf Thielow @ 2016-11-15 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raphaël Gertz; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <13c9b4a74d82a1f0ed3f626406a43e92@rapsys.eu>
Raphaël Gertz <mageia@rapsys.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There a small bug in gitweb html validation, you need the following patch to
> pass w3c check with searchbox enabled.
>
> The problem lies in the input directly embed inside a form without a wrapper
> which is not valid.
>
I agree this is a small bug. Only block level elements are
allowed to be inside form tags, according to
https://www.w3.org/2010/04/xhtml10-strict.html#elem_form
> Best regards
>
> The following patch fix the issue for git-2.10.2 :
> --- /usr/share/gitweb/gitweb.cgi.orig 2016-11-15 15:37:21.149805026 +0100
> +++ /usr/share/gitweb/gitweb.cgi 2016-11-15 15:37:48.579240429 +0100
> @@ -5518,6 +5518,7 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
>
> print "<div class=\"projsearch\">\n";
> print $cgi->start_form(-method => 'get', -action => $my_uri) .
> + '<div>'.
> $cgi->hidden(-name => 'a', -value => 'project_list') . "\n";
> print $cgi->hidden(-name => 'pf', -value => $project_filter). "\n"
> if (defined $project_filter);
> @@ -5529,6 +5530,7 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
> -checked => $search_use_regexp) .
> "</span>\n" .
> $cgi->submit(-name => 'btnS', -value => 'Search') .
> + '</div>'.
> $cgi->end_form() . "\n" .
> $cgi->a({-href => href(project => undef, searchtext => undef,
> project_filter => $project_filter)},
I think it's better to just move the <form>-Tag outside of the
surrounding div?
Something like this perhaps, I didn't test it myself yet.
diff --git a/gitweb/gitweb.perl b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
index 7cf68f07b..33d7c154f 100755
--- a/gitweb/gitweb.perl
+++ b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
@@ -5531,8 +5531,8 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
$limit = " in '$project_filter/'";
}
- print "<div class=\"projsearch\">\n";
print $cgi->start_form(-method => 'get', -action => $my_uri) .
+ "<div class=\"projsearch\">\n" .
$cgi->hidden(-name => 'a', -value => 'project_list') . "\n";
print $cgi->hidden(-name => 'pf', -value => $project_filter). "\n"
if (defined $project_filter);
@@ -5544,11 +5544,11 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
-checked => $search_use_regexp) .
"</span>\n" .
$cgi->submit(-name => 'btnS', -value => 'Search') .
- $cgi->end_form() . "\n" .
$cgi->a({-href => href(project => undef, searchtext => undef,
project_filter => $project_filter)},
esc_html("List all projects$limit")) . "<br />\n";
- print "</div>\n";
+ print "</div>\n" .
+ $cgi->end_form() . "\n";
}
# entry for given @keys needs filling if at least one of keys in list
diff --git a/gitweb/static/gitweb.css b/gitweb/static/gitweb.css
index 321260103..507740b6a 100644
--- a/gitweb/static/gitweb.css
+++ b/gitweb/static/gitweb.css
@@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ div.projsearch {
margin: 20px 0px;
}
-div.projsearch form {
+form div.projsearch {
margin-bottom: 2px;
}
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-11-15 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Schneider; +Cc: Eric Wong, git
In-Reply-To: <5BC69AC1-5499-4F73-816A-D8786106D796@gmail.com>
Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>> The filter itself would need to be aware of parallelism
>> if it lives for multiple objects, right?
>
> Correct. This way Git doesn't need to deal with threading...
I think you need to be careful about three things (at least; there
may be more):
* Codepaths that check out multiple cache entries do rely on the
order of checkout. We checkout removals first to make room so
that creation of a path X can succeed if an existing path X/Y
that used to want to see X as a directory can succeed (see the
use of checkout_entry() by "git checkout", which does have two
separate loops to explicitly guarantee this), for example. I
think "remove all and then create" you do not specifically have
to worry about with the proposed change, but you may need to
inspect and verify there aren't other kind of order dependency.
* Done naively, it will lead to unmaintainable code, like this:
+ struct list_of_cache_entries *list = ...;
for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++)
- checkout_entry(active_cache[i], state, NULL);
+ if (checkout_entry(active_cache[i], state, NULL) == DELAYED)
+ add_cache_to_queue(&list, active_cache[i]);
+ while (list) {
+ wait_for_checkout_to_finish(*list);
+ list = list->next;
+ }
I do not think we want to see such a rewrite all over the
codepaths. It might be OK to add such a "these entries are known
to be delayed" list in struct checkout so that the above becomes
more like this:
for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++)
checkout_entry(active_cache[i], state, NULL);
+ checkout_entry_finish(state);
That is, addition of a single "some of the checkout_entry() calls
done so far might have been lazy, and I'll give them a chance to
clean up" might be palatable. Anything more than that on the
caller side is not.
* You'd need to rein in the maximum parallelism somehow, as you do
not want to see hundreds of competing filter processes starting
only to tell the main loop over an index with hundreds of entries
that they are delayed checkouts.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: ignore blank line removals
From: John Rood @ 2016-11-15 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In-Reply-To: <CALj-rGcSrbAiyxPOYD1KCacK_gqi3T5_R=e0H_UfBTqLb5VRmg@mail.gmail.com>
Is there any push-back on this, or is there a backlog that we can add
this feature to?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, John Rood <mr.john.rood@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the contents of a file initially are:
> one
>
> three
> and on branch A there is a commit, removing the blank line:
> one
> three
> and on branch B there is a commit, adding 'two':
> one
> two
> three
> Normally, if you try to merge A into B (or B into A), git recognizes a
> decision needs to be made between removing the second line or add
> "two" to the second line. It would be convenient to have a merge
> strategy that defaults to the latter in cases where the removed line
> was a blank line (or a line containing only whitespace) ...something
> like -Xignore-blank-line-removals.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Speedup finding of unpushed submodules
From: Brandon Williams @ 2016-11-15 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Beller
Cc: Heiko Voigt, Junio C Hamano, git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King,
Jens Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson, Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kawQOO98GFYZBnUhN_A8jKDVopTDHMjsM=rrG_5ekyidQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/15, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> > You can find the second iteration of this series here:
> >
> > http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1475851621.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net/
> >
> > All mentioned issues should be fixed. I put the NEEDSWORK comment in a
> > seperate patch since it seemed to me as if we did not fully agree on
> > that. So in case we decide against it we can just drop that patch.
> >
> > Cheers Heiko
> >
>
> +cc Brandon who started building a series on top of yours.
I don't think there should be too much I'll have to change with my
series, I'll just rebase against these changes once Junio updates his
branch.
If you want to take a look at my series its here:
https://public-inbox.org/git/1479172735-698-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com/
Thanks for the heads up Stefan.
--
Brandon Williams
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Speedup finding of unpushed submodules
From: Stefan Beller @ 2016-11-15 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Voigt, Brandon Williams
Cc: Junio C Hamano, git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King, Jens Lehmann,
Fredrik Gustafsson, Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
> You can find the second iteration of this series here:
>
> http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1475851621.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net/
>
> All mentioned issues should be fixed. I put the NEEDSWORK comment in a
> seperate patch since it seemed to me as if we did not fully agree on
> that. So in case we decide against it we can just drop that patch.
>
> Cheers Heiko
>
+cc Brandon who started building a series on top of yours.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] remote-curl: don't hang when a server dies before any output
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-11-15 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: David Turner, git, spearce
In-Reply-To: <20161115035844.e6ehuy7uigqinbnv@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 05:02:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>
>> > Actually, I take it back. I think it works for a single round of ref
>> > negotiation, but not for multiple. Enabling GIT_TEST_LONG=1 causes it to
>> > fail t5551.
>> >
>> > I think I've probably made a mis-assumption on exactly when in the HTTP
>> > protocol we will see a flush packet (and perhaps that is a sign that
>> > this protocol-snooping approach is not a good one).
>>
>> Hmph. I think I tried David's original under GIT_TEST_LONG and saw
>> it got stuck; could be the same issue, I guess.
>
> It works OK here. I think it is just that the test is really slow (by
> design).
Yeah, I think what I recalled was my old attempt to run the
follow-up "any SHA-1" patch without this one.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] recursively grep across submodules
From: Stefan Beller @ 2016-11-15 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brandon Williams; +Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan, Junio C Hamano
In-Reply-To: <1478908273-190166-1-git-send-email-bmwill@google.com>
coverity seems to dislike this part:
*** CID 1394367: Null pointer dereferences (NULL_RETURNS)
/builtin/grep.c: 625 in grep_submodule()
619 is_submodule_populated(path))) {
620 /*
621 * If searching history, check for the presense of the
622 * submodule's gitdir before skipping the submodule.
623 */
624 if (sha1) {
>>> CID 1394367: Null pointer dereferences (NULL_RETURNS)
>>> Dereferencing a null pointer "submodule_from_path(null_sha1, path)".
625 path = git_path("modules/%s",
626
submodule_from_path(null_sha1, path)->name);
627
628 if (!(is_directory(path) &&
is_git_directory(path)))
629 return 0;
630 } else {
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v7 13/17] ref-filter: add `:dir` and `:base` options for ref printing atoms
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-11-15 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jacob Keller; +Cc: Karthik Nayak, Git mailing list
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xo6OqcpLZ7v_m1EPm85eK2xCPD_LCw1Ly2RSPeSC0Ei7g@mail.gmail.com>
Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> writes:
> dirname makes sense. What about implementing a reverse variant of
> strip, which you could perform stripping of right-most components and
> instead of stripping by a number, strip "to" a number, ie: keep the
> left N most components, and then you could use something like
> ...
> I think that would be more general purpose than basename, and less confusing?
I think you are going in the right direction. I had a similar
thought but built around a different axis. I.e. if strip=1 strips
one from the left, perhaps we want to have rstrip=1 that strips one
from the right, and also strip=-1 to mean strip everything except
one from the left and so on?. I think this and your keep (and
perhaps you'll have rkeep for completeness) have the same expressive
power. I do not offhand have a preference one over the other.
Somehow it sounds a bit strange to me to treat 'remotes' as the same
class of token as 'heads' and 'tags' (I'd expect 'heads' and
'remotes/origin' would be at the same level in end-user's mind), but
that is probably an unrelated tangent. The reason this series wants
to introduce :base must be to emulate an existing feature, so that
existing feature is a concrete counter-example that argues against
my "it sounds a bit strange" reaction.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?
From: Jeff King @ 2016-11-15 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt McCutchen; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1479231184.2406.88.camel@mattmccutchen.net>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:33:04PM -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 12:06 -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > - when an object write is optimized out because we already have the
> > object, git will update the mtime on the file (loose object or
> > packfile) to freshen it
>
> FWIW, I am not seeing this happen when I do "git read-tree --prefix"
> followed by "git write-tree" using the current master (3ab2281). See
> the attached test script.
The optimization I'm thinking about is the one from write_sha1_file(),
which learned to freshen in 33d4221c7 (write_sha1_file: freshen existing
objects, 2014-10-15).
I suspect the issue is that read-tree populates the cache-tree index
extension, and then write-tree omits the object write before it even
gets to write_sha1_file(). The solution is that it should probably be
calling one of the freshen() functions (possibly just replacing
has_sha1_file() with check_and_freshen(), but I haven't looked).
I'd definitely welcome patches in this area.
> OK. I'll write a patch to add a summary of this information to the
> git-gc man page.
Sounds like a good idea. Thanks.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?
From: Matt McCutchen @ 2016-11-15 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <20161115170634.ichqrqbhmpv2dsiw@sigill.intra.peff.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1349 bytes --]
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 12:06 -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> - when an object write is optimized out because we already have the
> object, git will update the mtime on the file (loose object or
> packfile) to freshen it
FWIW, I am not seeing this happen when I do "git read-tree --prefix"
followed by "git write-tree" using the current master (3ab2281). See
the attached test script.
> If you have long-running data (like, a temporary index file that might
> literally sit around for days or weeks) I think that is a potential
> problem. And the solution is probably to use refs in some way to point
> to your objects.
Agreed. This is not my current scenario.
> If you're worried about a short-term operation where
> somebody happens to run git-gc concurrently, I agree it's a possible
> problem, but I suspect something you can ignore in practice.
>
> For the most part, a lot of the client-side git tools assume that one
> operation is happening at a time in the repository. And I think that
> largely holds for a developer working on a single clone, and things just
> work in practice.
>
> Auto-gc makes that a little sketchier, but historically does not seem to
> have really caused problems in practice.
OK. I'll write a patch to add a summary of this information to the
git-gc man page.
Matt
[-- Attachment #2: test-git-read-tree-write-tree-touch-object.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-shellscript, Size: 502 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] push: --dry-run updates submodules when --recurse-submodules=on-demand
From: Brandon Williams @ 2016-11-15 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Sixt; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <4a72ad14-0a8f-ede9-9f54-601fcd37740b@kdbg.org>
On 11/15, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 15.11.2016 um 02:18 schrieb Brandon Williams:
> >diff --git a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> >index 198ce84..e6ccc30 100755
> >--- a/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> >+++ b/t/t5531-deep-submodule-push.sh
> >@@ -427,7 +427,31 @@ test_expect_success 'push unpushable submodule recursively fails' '
> > cd submodule.git &&
> > git rev-parse master >../actual
> > ) &&
> >- test_cmp expected actual
> >+ test_cmp expected actual &&
> >+ git -C work reset --hard master^
>
> This line looks like a clean-up to be done after the test case. You
> should wrap it in test_when_finished, but outside of a sub-shell,
> which looks like it's just one line earlier, before the test_cmp.
K will do.
>
> >+'
> >+
> >+test_expect_failure 'push --dry-run does not recursively update submodules' '
> >+ (
> >+ cd work &&
> >+ (
> >+ cd gar/bage &&
> >+ git checkout master &&
> >+ git rev-parse master >../../../expected_submodule &&
> >+ > junk9 &&
> >+ git add junk9 &&
> >+ git commit -m "Ninth junk"
> >+ ) &&
>
> Could you please avoid this nested sub-shell? It is fine to cd
> around when you are in a sub-shell.
Yes I can reorganize it to avoid the nested sub-shells. I was just
trying to follow the organization of the other tests in the same file.
>
> >+ git checkout master &&
> >+ git rev-parse master >../expected_pub
>
> Broken && chain.
>
> >+ git add gar/bage &&
> >+ git commit -m "Ninth commit for gar/bage" &&
> >+ git push --dry-run --recurse-submodules=on-demand ../pub.git master
> >+ ) &&
> >+ git -C submodule.git rev-parse master >actual_submodule &&
> >+ git -C pub.git rev-parse master >actual_pub &&
>
> All of the commands above are 'git something' that could become 'git
> -C work something' and then the sub-shell would be unnecessary. I'm
> not sure I would appreciate the verbosity of the result, though.
> (Perhaps aligning the git subcommands after -C foo would help.)
I'll play around with it and try to make it look pretty while trying to
avoid sub-shells. I'm assuming the reason we want to avoid sub-shells is
for performance reasons right?
--
Brandon Williams
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?
From: Jeff King @ 2016-11-15 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matt McCutchen; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1479219194.2406.73.camel@mattmccutchen.net>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> I want to change this to something that won't leave an inconsistent
> state if interrupted. I've written code for this kind of thing before
> that sets GIT_INDEX_FILE and uses a temporary index file and "git
> write-tree". But I realized that if "git gc" runs concurrently, the
> generated tree could be deleted before it is used and the tool would
> fail. If I had a need to run "git commit-tree", it seems like I might
> even end up with a commit object with a broken reference to a tree.
> "git gc" normally doesn't delete objects that were created in the last
> 2 weeks, but if an identical tree was added to the object database more
> than 2 weeks ago by another operation and is unreferenced, it could be
> reused without updating its mtime and it could still get deleted.
Modern versions of git do two things to help with this:
- any object which is referenced by a "recent" object (within the 2
weeks) is also considered recent. So if you create a new commit
object that points to a tree, even before you reference the commit
that tree is protected
- when an object write is optimized out because we already have the
object, git will update the mtime on the file (loose object or
packfile) to freshen it
This isn't perfect, though. You can decide to reference an existing
object just as it is being deleted. And the pruning process itself is
not atomic (and it's tricky to make it so, just because of what we're
promised by the filesystem).
> Is there a recommended way to avoid this kind of problem in add-on
> tools? (I searched the Git documentation and the web for information
> about races with "git gc" and didn't find anything useful.) If not, it
> seems to be a significant design flaw in "git gc", even if the problem
> is extremely rare in practice. I wonder if some of the built-in
> commands may have the same problem, though I haven't tried to test
> them. If this is confirmed to be a known problem affecting built-in
> commands, then at least I won't feel bad about introducing the
> same problem into add-on tools. :/
If you have long-running data (like, a temporary index file that might
literally sit around for days or weeks) I think that is a potential
problem. And the solution is probably to use refs in some way to point
to your objects. If you're worried about a short-term operation where
somebody happens to run git-gc concurrently, I agree it's a possible
problem, but I suspect something you can ignore in practice.
For the most part, a lot of the client-side git tools assume that one
operation is happening at a time in the repository. And I think that
largely holds for a developer working on a single clone, and things just
work in practice.
Auto-gc makes that a little sketchier, but historically does not seem to
have really caused problems in practice.
For a busy multi-user server, I recommend turning off auto-gc entirely,
and repacking manually with "-k" to be on the safe side.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] t0021, t5615: use $PWD instead of $(pwd) in PATH-like shell variables
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2016-11-15 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Lars Schneider, Johannes Sixt, git, Jeff King
In-Reply-To: <xmqqshqux9il.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Dscho's mention of 'still times out' may be an indiciation that
> something unspecified on 'pu' is not ready to be merged to 'next',
> but blocking all of 'pu' with a blanket statement is not useful,
> and that was where my response comes from.
Until the time when the test suite takes less than the insane three hours
to run, I am afraid that a blanket statement on `pu` is the best I can do.
Ciao,
Johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* gitweb html validation
From: Raphaël Gertz @ 2016-11-15 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi,
There a small bug in gitweb html validation, you need the following
patch to pass w3c check with searchbox enabled.
The problem lies in the input directly embed inside a form without a
wrapper which is not valid.
Best regards
The following patch fix the issue for git-2.10.2 :
--- /usr/share/gitweb/gitweb.cgi.orig 2016-11-15 15:37:21.149805026
+0100
+++ /usr/share/gitweb/gitweb.cgi 2016-11-15 15:37:48.579240429
+0100
@@ -5518,6 +5518,7 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
print "<div class=\"projsearch\">\n";
print $cgi->start_form(-method => 'get', -action => $my_uri) .
+ '<div>'.
$cgi->hidden(-name => 'a', -value => 'project_list') .
"\n";
print $cgi->hidden(-name => 'pf', -value => $project_filter).
"\n"
if (defined $project_filter);
@@ -5529,6 +5530,7 @@ sub git_project_search_form {
-checked => $search_use_regexp) .
"</span>\n" .
$cgi->submit(-name => 'btnS', -value => 'Search') .
+ '</div>'.
$cgi->end_form() . "\n" .
$cgi->a({-href => href(project => undef, searchtext =>
undef,
project_filter =>
$project_filter)},
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: [PATCH] remote-curl: don't hang when a server dies before any output
From: David Turner @ 2016-11-15 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Jeff King'; +Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, spearce@spearce.org
In-Reply-To: <20161114234847.2nexsgedpg7zvrr5@sigill.intra.peff.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff King [mailto:peff@peff.net]
...
> I'll make that change and then try to wrap this up with a commit message.
> I plan to steal your tests, if that's OK.
Please do!
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: New to git, need help!
From: Pranit Bauva @ 2016-11-15 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mayank Gupta; +Cc: Git List
In-Reply-To: <CAJNRPQRhyrALj0zdaTxKgwo8j8r8_7ixgX21+C=ue+CGKYgaCg@mail.gmail.com>
Hey Mayank,
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Mayank Gupta
<mayankgupta18198@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to open source and have recently joined this mailing list.
> Since I'm new at this, I think I can initially contribute to the
> community by fixing some small bugs or errors but as the documentation
> is too large, I don't know where to start.
> So if anybody could guide me on how to go about it, it would be really
> appreciated.
It is really nice that you want to start contributing. We have a user
documentation[1] and a developer documentation[2]. To contribute to a
feature, firstly you need to learn about that feature. So go through
the man pages of the tool which you would want to work on. The things
that you would be using are documented in the technical documentation.
Apart from this, you can start hunting small errors but I think it
would be difficult in the initial stages. So read this[3] even though
it is specific for GSoC, it is helpful for any new developer. Also you
can search the mailing list archives for "low hanging fruit" to get
things which were thought of but not done or something like that.
[1]: https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/Documentation
[2]: https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/Documentation/technical
[3]: https://git.github.io/SoC-2016-Microprojects/
Hope to see a patch from your side soon! :)
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: disable GIT_TEST_HTTPD for macOS
From: Jeff King @ 2016-11-15 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heiko Voigt
Cc: Lars Schneider, Junio C Hamano, Torsten Bögershausen, git,
Eric Sunshine
In-Reply-To: <20161115120718.GA7854@book.hvoigt.net>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 01:07:18PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:22:51AM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote:
> > To all macOS users on the list:
> > Does anyone execute the tests with GIT_TEST_HTTPD enabled successfully?
>
> Nope. The following tests fail for me on master: 5539, 5540, 5541, 5542,
> 5550, 5551, 5561, 5812.
Failing how? Does apache fail to start up? Do tests fails? What does
"-v" say? Is there anything interesting in httpd/error.log in the trash
directory?
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Git status takes too long- How to improve the performance of git
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ravalika; +Cc: git
In-Reply-To: <1479202392275-7657456.post@n2.nabble.com>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:33:12AM -0700, ravalika wrote:
> Number of files - 63883
Since you also posted this to the "Git for Windows" mailinglist I assume
that you are using Windows. Reduce the number of files. For example
split the repository into two one for documentation and one for source.
Thats what I did with a converted repository that had to many files.
Windows is unfortunately very slow when it comes to handling many files
and if I recall correctly ~30000 files was in a nicely handleable range
for a Git repository on Windows, but that might have changed...
Cheers Heiko
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v3 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Jeff King, Stefan Beller, Jens.Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson,
Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
---
submodule.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index e1196fd..29efee9 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -531,6 +531,14 @@ static int submodule_has_commits(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
{
if (!submodule_has_commits(path, commits))
+ /* NEEDSWORK: The correct answer here is "We do not
+ * know" instead of "No push needed". We currently
+ * proceed pushing here as if the submodules commits are
+ * available on a remote. Since we can not check the
+ * remote availability for this submodule we should
+ * consider changing this behavior to: Stop here and
+ * tell the user how to skip this check if wanted.
+ */
return 0;
if (for_each_remote_ref_submodule(path, has_remote, NULL) > 0) {
--
2.10.1.386.gc503e45
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v3 1/4] serialize collection of changed submodules
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Jeff King, Stefan Beller, Jens.Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson,
Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
To check whether a submodule needs to be pushed we need to collect all
changed submodules. Lets collect them first and then execute the
possibly expensive test whether certain revisions are already pushed
only once per submodule.
There is further potential for optimization since we can assemble one
command and only issued that instead of one call for each remote ref in
the submodule.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
---
submodule.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index 6f7d883..b91585e 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -532,19 +532,34 @@ static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, const unsigned char sha1[20
return 0;
}
+static struct sha1_array *submodule_commits(struct string_list *submodules,
+ const char *path)
+{
+ struct string_list_item *item;
+
+ item = string_list_insert(submodules, path);
+ if (item->util)
+ return (struct sha1_array *) item->util;
+
+ /* NEEDSWORK: should we have sha1_array_init()? */
+ item->util = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct sha1_array));
+ return (struct sha1_array *) item->util;
+}
+
static void collect_submodules_from_diff(struct diff_queue_struct *q,
struct diff_options *options,
void *data)
{
int i;
- struct string_list *needs_pushing = data;
+ struct string_list *submodules = data;
for (i = 0; i < q->nr; i++) {
struct diff_filepair *p = q->queue[i];
+ struct sha1_array *commits;
if (!S_ISGITLINK(p->two->mode))
continue;
- if (submodule_needs_pushing(p->two->path, p->two->oid.hash))
- string_list_insert(needs_pushing, p->two->path);
+ commits = submodule_commits(submodules, p->two->path);
+ sha1_array_append(commits, p->two->oid.hash);
}
}
@@ -560,6 +575,31 @@ static void find_unpushed_submodule_commits(struct commit *commit,
diff_tree_combined_merge(commit, 1, &rev);
}
+struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data {
+ char *submodule_path;
+ struct string_list *needs_pushing;
+};
+
+static int collect_submodules_from_sha1s(const unsigned char sha1[20],
+ void *data)
+{
+ struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data *me =
+ (struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data *) data;
+
+ if (submodule_needs_pushing(me->submodule_path, sha1))
+ string_list_insert(me->needs_pushing, me->submodule_path);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void free_submodules_sha1s(struct string_list *submodules)
+{
+ struct string_list_item *item;
+ for_each_string_list_item(item, submodules)
+ sha1_array_clear((struct sha1_array *) item->util);
+ string_list_clear(submodules, 1);
+}
+
int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
const char *remotes_name, struct string_list *needs_pushing)
{
@@ -568,6 +608,8 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
const char *argv[] = {NULL, NULL, "--not", "NULL", NULL};
int argc = ARRAY_SIZE(argv) - 1;
char *sha1_copy;
+ struct string_list submodules = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
+ struct string_list_item *submodule;
struct strbuf remotes_arg = STRBUF_INIT;
@@ -581,12 +623,22 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
die("revision walk setup failed");
while ((commit = get_revision(&rev)) != NULL)
- find_unpushed_submodule_commits(commit, needs_pushing);
+ find_unpushed_submodule_commits(commit, &submodules);
reset_revision_walk();
free(sha1_copy);
strbuf_release(&remotes_arg);
+ for_each_string_list_item(submodule, &submodules) {
+ struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data data;
+ data.submodule_path = submodule->string;
+ data.needs_pushing = needs_pushing;
+ sha1_array_for_each_unique((struct sha1_array *) submodule->util,
+ collect_submodules_from_sha1s,
+ &data);
+ }
+ free_submodules_sha1s(&submodules);
+
return needs_pushing->nr;
}
--
2.10.1.386.gc503e45
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v3 2/4] serialize collection of refs that contain submodule changes
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Jeff King, Stefan Beller, Jens.Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson,
Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
We are iterating over each pushed ref and want to check whether it
contains changes to submodules. Instead of immediately checking each ref
lets first collect them and then do the check for all of them in one
revision walk.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
---
submodule.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
submodule.h | 5 +++--
transport.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index b91585e..769d666 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -500,6 +500,13 @@ static int has_remote(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
return 1;
}
+static int append_sha1_to_argv(const unsigned char sha1[20], void *data)
+{
+ struct argv_array *argv = (struct argv_array *) data;
+ argv_array_push(argv, sha1_to_hex(sha1));
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, const unsigned char sha1[20])
{
if (add_submodule_odb(path) || !lookup_commit_reference(sha1))
@@ -600,25 +607,24 @@ static void free_submodules_sha1s(struct string_list *submodules)
string_list_clear(submodules, 1);
}
-int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
+int find_unpushed_submodules(struct sha1_array *commits,
const char *remotes_name, struct string_list *needs_pushing)
{
struct rev_info rev;
struct commit *commit;
- const char *argv[] = {NULL, NULL, "--not", "NULL", NULL};
- int argc = ARRAY_SIZE(argv) - 1;
- char *sha1_copy;
struct string_list submodules = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
struct string_list_item *submodule;
+ struct argv_array argv = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
- struct strbuf remotes_arg = STRBUF_INIT;
-
- strbuf_addf(&remotes_arg, "--remotes=%s", remotes_name);
init_revisions(&rev, NULL);
- sha1_copy = xstrdup(sha1_to_hex(new_sha1));
- argv[1] = sha1_copy;
- argv[3] = remotes_arg.buf;
- setup_revisions(argc, argv, &rev, NULL);
+
+ /* argv.argv[0] will be ignored by setup_revisions */
+ argv_array_push(&argv, "find_unpushed_submodules");
+ sha1_array_for_each_unique(commits, append_sha1_to_argv, &argv);
+ argv_array_push(&argv, "--not");
+ argv_array_pushf(&argv, "--remotes=%s", remotes_name);
+
+ setup_revisions(argv.argc, argv.argv, &rev, NULL);
if (prepare_revision_walk(&rev))
die("revision walk setup failed");
@@ -626,8 +632,7 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
find_unpushed_submodule_commits(commit, &submodules);
reset_revision_walk();
- free(sha1_copy);
- strbuf_release(&remotes_arg);
+ argv_array_clear(&argv);
for_each_string_list_item(submodule, &submodules) {
struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data data;
@@ -664,12 +669,12 @@ static int push_submodule(const char *path)
return 1;
}
-int push_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20], const char *remotes_name)
+int push_unpushed_submodules(struct sha1_array *commits, const char *remotes_name)
{
int i, ret = 1;
struct string_list needs_pushing = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
- if (!find_unpushed_submodules(new_sha1, remotes_name, &needs_pushing))
+ if (!find_unpushed_submodules(commits, remotes_name, &needs_pushing))
return 1;
for (i = 0; i < needs_pushing.nr; i++) {
diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
index d9e197a..9454806 100644
--- a/submodule.h
+++ b/submodule.h
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
struct diff_options;
struct argv_array;
+struct sha1_array;
enum {
RECURSE_SUBMODULES_CHECK = -4,
@@ -62,9 +63,9 @@ int submodule_uses_gitfile(const char *path);
int ok_to_remove_submodule(const char *path);
int merge_submodule(unsigned char result[20], const char *path, const unsigned char base[20],
const unsigned char a[20], const unsigned char b[20], int search);
-int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20], const char *remotes_name,
+int find_unpushed_submodules(struct sha1_array *commits, const char *remotes_name,
struct string_list *needs_pushing);
-int push_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20], const char *remotes_name);
+int push_unpushed_submodules(struct sha1_array *commits, const char *remotes_name);
void connect_work_tree_and_git_dir(const char *work_tree, const char *git_dir);
int parallel_submodules(void);
diff --git a/transport.c b/transport.c
index d57e8de..f482869 100644
--- a/transport.c
+++ b/transport.c
@@ -949,23 +949,36 @@ int transport_push(struct transport *transport,
if ((flags & TRANSPORT_RECURSE_SUBMODULES_ON_DEMAND) && !is_bare_repository()) {
struct ref *ref = remote_refs;
+ struct sha1_array commits = SHA1_ARRAY_INIT;
+
for (; ref; ref = ref->next)
- if (!is_null_oid(&ref->new_oid) &&
- !push_unpushed_submodules(ref->new_oid.hash,
- transport->remote->name))
- die ("Failed to push all needed submodules!");
+ if (!is_null_oid(&ref->new_oid))
+ sha1_array_append(&commits, ref->new_oid.hash);
+
+ if (!push_unpushed_submodules(&commits, transport->remote->name)) {
+ sha1_array_clear(&commits);
+ die("Failed to push all needed submodules!");
+ }
+ sha1_array_clear(&commits);
}
if ((flags & (TRANSPORT_RECURSE_SUBMODULES_ON_DEMAND |
TRANSPORT_RECURSE_SUBMODULES_CHECK)) && !is_bare_repository()) {
struct ref *ref = remote_refs;
struct string_list needs_pushing = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
+ struct sha1_array commits = SHA1_ARRAY_INIT;
for (; ref; ref = ref->next)
- if (!is_null_oid(&ref->new_oid) &&
- find_unpushed_submodules(ref->new_oid.hash,
- transport->remote->name, &needs_pushing))
- die_with_unpushed_submodules(&needs_pushing);
+ if (!is_null_oid(&ref->new_oid))
+ sha1_array_append(&commits, ref->new_oid.hash);
+
+ if (find_unpushed_submodules(&commits, transport->remote->name,
+ &needs_pushing)) {
+ sha1_array_clear(&commits);
+ die_with_unpushed_submodules(&needs_pushing);
+ }
+ string_list_clear(&needs_pushing, 0);
+ sha1_array_clear(&commits);
}
push_ret = transport->push_refs(transport, remote_refs, flags);
--
2.10.1.386.gc503e45
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v3 3/4] batch check whether submodule needs pushing into one call
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Jeff King, Stefan Beller, Jens.Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson,
Leandro Lucarella
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
We run a command for each sha1 change in a submodule. This is
unnecessary since we can simply batch all sha1's we want to check into
one command. Lets do it so we can speedup the check when many submodule
changes are in need of checking.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
---
submodule.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
index 769d666..e1196fd 100644
--- a/submodule.c
+++ b/submodule.c
@@ -507,27 +507,49 @@ static int append_sha1_to_argv(const unsigned char sha1[20], void *data)
return 0;
}
-static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, const unsigned char sha1[20])
+static int check_has_commit(const unsigned char sha1[20], void *data)
{
- if (add_submodule_odb(path) || !lookup_commit_reference(sha1))
+ int *has_commit = (int *) data;
+
+ if (!lookup_commit_reference(sha1))
+ *has_commit = 0;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int submodule_has_commits(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
+{
+ int has_commit = 1;
+
+ if (add_submodule_odb(path))
+ return 0;
+
+ sha1_array_for_each_unique(commits, check_has_commit, &has_commit);
+ return has_commit;
+}
+
+static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
+{
+ if (!submodule_has_commits(path, commits))
return 0;
if (for_each_remote_ref_submodule(path, has_remote, NULL) > 0) {
struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
- const char *argv[] = {"rev-list", NULL, "--not", "--remotes", "-n", "1" , NULL};
struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
int needs_pushing = 0;
- argv[1] = sha1_to_hex(sha1);
- cp.argv = argv;
+ argv_array_push(&cp.args, "rev-list");
+ sha1_array_for_each_unique(commits, append_sha1_to_argv, &cp.args);
+ argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "--not", "--remotes", "-n", "1" , NULL);
+
prepare_submodule_repo_env(&cp.env_array);
cp.git_cmd = 1;
cp.no_stdin = 1;
cp.out = -1;
cp.dir = path;
if (start_command(&cp))
- die("Could not run 'git rev-list %s --not --remotes -n 1' command in submodule %s",
- sha1_to_hex(sha1), path);
+ die("Could not run 'git rev-list <commits> --not --remotes -n 1' command in submodule %s",
+ path);
if (strbuf_read(&buf, cp.out, 41))
needs_pushing = 1;
finish_command(&cp);
@@ -582,23 +604,6 @@ static void find_unpushed_submodule_commits(struct commit *commit,
diff_tree_combined_merge(commit, 1, &rev);
}
-struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data {
- char *submodule_path;
- struct string_list *needs_pushing;
-};
-
-static int collect_submodules_from_sha1s(const unsigned char sha1[20],
- void *data)
-{
- struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data *me =
- (struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data *) data;
-
- if (submodule_needs_pushing(me->submodule_path, sha1))
- string_list_insert(me->needs_pushing, me->submodule_path);
-
- return 0;
-}
-
static void free_submodules_sha1s(struct string_list *submodules)
{
struct string_list_item *item;
@@ -635,12 +640,10 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(struct sha1_array *commits,
argv_array_clear(&argv);
for_each_string_list_item(submodule, &submodules) {
- struct collect_submodule_from_sha1s_data data;
- data.submodule_path = submodule->string;
- data.needs_pushing = needs_pushing;
- sha1_array_for_each_unique((struct sha1_array *) submodule->util,
- collect_submodules_from_sha1s,
- &data);
+ struct sha1_array *commits = (struct sha1_array *) submodule->util;
+
+ if (submodule_needs_pushing(submodule->string, commits))
+ string_list_insert(needs_pushing, submodule->string);
}
free_submodules_sha1s(&submodules);
--
2.10.1.386.gc503e45
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v3 0/4] Speedup finding of unpushed submodules
From: Heiko Voigt @ 2016-11-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: git, Jeff King, Stefan Beller, Jens.Lehmann, Fredrik Gustafsson,
Leandro Lucarella
You can find the second iteration of this series here:
http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1475851621.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net/
All mentioned issues should be fixed. I put the NEEDSWORK comment in a
seperate patch since it seemed to me as if we did not fully agree on
that. So in case we decide against it we can just drop that patch.
Cheers Heiko
Heiko Voigt (4):
serialize collection of changed submodules
serialize collection of refs that contain submodule changes
batch check whether submodule needs pushing into one call
submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this
question
submodule.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
submodule.h | 5 ++-
transport.c | 29 +++++++++++----
3 files changed, 118 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
--
2.10.1.386.gc503e45
^ 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