[ANNOUNCE] tig-2.2.1

Hello, A new minor version of tig is available which adds support for diff-highlight (see instructions below) and navigation between merge commits as well as several keybinding tweaks. Tarballs should now be downloaded from GitHub. Either go to https://github.com/jonas/tig/releases or use the

Re: [PATCH v15 07/27] bisect--helper: `bisect_reset` shell function in C

Hey Stephan, On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Stephan Beyer wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/14/2016 04:14 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote: >> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> index 4254d61..d84ba86 100644 >> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> +++

Re: Rebasing cascading topic trees

More things I learned! So there are (at least) 2 possible approaches: using history, or using local tracking branches. The latter looks actually nicer to me, with the exception that if asks for a `git pull`. Using `git pull --rebase` actually also ends up with the same tree, but I like the

Re: Rebasing cascading topic trees

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:12:20PM -0800, Norbert Kiesel wrote: > Yes, `git rebase --onto topic1 topic1@{1} topic2` is the answer! See also the `--fork-point` option, which (I think) should do this for you (and is the default if "topic1" is the configured upstream for topic2 and you just run

Re: Re* Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:35:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > OK, here is what I have queued. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: cache-tree: make sure to "touch" tree objects the cache-tree records > > The cache_tree_fully_valid() function is called by callers that want > to know if they need to call

Re* Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

Jeff King writes: > I think the case that is helped here is somebody who runs "git > write-tree" and expects that the timestamp on those trees is fresh. So > even more a briefly used index, like: > > export GIT_INDEX_FILE=/tmp/foo > git read-tree ... > git write-tree > rm

Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:58:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > 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(). > > Wait a

Re: Rebasing cascading topic trees

Yes, `git rebase --onto topic1 topic1@{1} topic2` is the answer! Thanks so much, learned something new today. On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Norbert Kiesel writes: > >> I currently have a situation with cascading topic branches

Re: [PATCH v15 08/27] bisect--helper: `is_expected_rev` & `check_expected_revs` shell function in C

Hi, On 10/14/2016 04:14 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote: > diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > index d84ba86..c542e8b 100644 > --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c > +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > @@ -123,13 +123,40 @@ static int bisect_reset(const char *commit) > return

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

Jakub Narębski writes: >> I intend to implement this feature only for the new long running filter >> process protocol. OK with you? > > If I remember and understand it correctly, current version of long > running process protocol processes files sequentially, one by one: > git

Re: Rebasing cascading topic trees

Norbert Kiesel writes: > I currently have a situation with cascading topic branches that I need to > rebase > regularly. In the picture below, I want to rebase the tree starting with `E` > to > be rebased onto master (my actually cascade is 4 branches deep). > > A--B--C--D

Rebasing cascading topic trees

I currently have a situation with cascading topic branches that I need to rebase regularly. In the picture below, I want to rebase the tree starting with `E` to be rebased onto master (my actually cascade is 4 branches deep). A--B--C--D (master) \ E--F (topic1) \ G--H

[Bug?] git notes are not copied during rebase

Hi, I am currently a heavy user of rebasing and noticed that my notes don't get correctly applied, even if notes.rewrite.rebase is set explicitly to true (though manual says that is the default). Below is a use case that shows that a commit on a branch got rebased, but the note was not copied to

Re: [PATCH v15 07/27] bisect--helper: `bisect_reset` shell function in C

Hi, On 10/14/2016 04:14 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote: > diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > index 4254d61..d84ba86 100644 > --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c > +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > @@ -84,12 +89,47 @@ static int write_terms(const char *bad, const char *good) >

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

W dniu 16.11.2016 o 10:53, Lars Schneider pisze: > On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:03, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Lars Schneider writes: >> The filter itself would need to be aware of parallelism if it lives for multiple objects, right? >>> >>> Correct.

What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2016, #03; Wed, 16)

Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. You can find the changes

[PATCH] git-gui: Sort entries in optimized tclIndex

auto_mkindex expands wildcards in directory order, which depends on the underlying filesystem. To improve build reproducibility, sort the list of *.tcl files in the Makefile. The unoptimized loading case (7 lines below) was previously fixed in v2.11.0-rc0~31^2^2~14 “git-gui: sort entries in

Re: [PATCH] t0021, t5615: use $PWD instead of $(pwd) in PATH-like shell variables

Johannes Schindelin writes: > This is the offending part from last night's build: > > -- snipsnap -- > 2016-11-16T00:31:57.5321220Z copy.c: In function 'copy_dir_1': > 2016-11-16T00:31:57.5321220Z copy.c:369:8: error: implicit declaration of > function 'lchown'

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:18:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heiko Voigt writes: > > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt > > --- > > Needs retitle ;-) Here is what I tentatively queued. Thanks ;-) Missed that one. > submodule_needs_pushing(): explain

git stash can recursively delete a directory with no warning

Using git 2.10.1, I recently lost the contents of an entire directory by running a "git stash" command. I don't know if this known behavior, but it seems pretty dangerous. To trigger the bug, all you have to do is check out a repository containing a symlink, delete the symlink, and then create a

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: disable GIT_TEST_HTTPD for macOS

On 16.11.16 15:39, Heiko Voigt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:31:59AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: >> 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

Can I squash the merge created by "git subtree add"?

When I do a "git subtree add", I get two commits. df7e8f5 Merge commit '6de34775ea846c90e3f28e9e7fdfe690385c068b' as 'go/src/gopkg.in/ns1/ns1-go.v1' 6de3477 Squashed 'go/src/gopkg.in/ns1/ns1-go.v1/' content from commit 1d343da Unfortunately, in the environment I'm currently working in,

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

Lars Schneider writes: >> On 16 Nov 2016, at 19:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Lars Schneider writes: >> * You'd need to rein in the maximum parallelism somehow, as you do not want to see hundreds of competing

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question

Heiko Voigt writes: > Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt > --- Needs retitle ;-) Here is what I tentatively queued. submodule_needs_pushing(): explain the behaviour when we cannot answer When we do not have commits that are involved in the update of

Re: [PATCH 01/16] submodule.h: add extern keyword to functions, break line before 80

Stefan Beller writes: > submodule.h: add extern keyword to functions, break line before 80 The former is probably a good change for consistency. As the latter change breaks a workflow around quickly checking the output from "git grep funcname \*.h", I am not sure if it is a

Re: [PATCH 02/16] submodule: modernize ok_to_remove_submodule to use argv_array

David Turner writes: >> -"-u", > ... >> +argv_array_pushl(, "status", "--porcelain", "-uall", > > This also changes -u to -uall, which is not mentioned in the > commit message. That should probably be called out. Or not making that change at all.

Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

Jeff King writes: > 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(). Wait a minute. The entries in the index and trees in the cache-tree are root of "still in

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

> On 16 Nov 2016, at 19:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Lars Schneider writes: > >>> * 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

Re: [PATCH 00/11] git worktree (re)move

Junio C Hamano writes: > Duy Nguyen writes: > >> The following patch should fix it if that's the same thing you saw. I >> could pile it on worktree-move series, or you can make it a separate >> one-patch series. What's your preference? > > Giving a stable

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2)

Junio C Hamano writes: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> I _think_ the no-index mode was primarily for those who want to use >>> our diff as a replacement for GNU and other diffs, and from that >>>

[ANNOUNCE] Git Rev News edition 20

Hi everyone, I'm happy announce that the 21th edition of Git Rev News is now published: https://git.github.io/rev_news/2016/11/16/edition-21/ Thanks a lot to all the contributors and helpers, especially Jacob, Dscho, Markus, Gábor and Peff! Enjoy, Christian, Thomas and Jakub.

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2)

Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I _think_ the no-index mode was primarily for those who want to use >> our diff as a replacement for GNU and other diffs, and from that >> point of view, I'd favour not doing the "comparing

Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

Jeff King writes: > ... I notice there is > a return very early on in update_one() when has_sha1_file() matches, and > it seems like that would trigger in some interesting cases, too. Yeah, I missed that. It says "we were asked to update one cache_tree that corresponds to this

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

Lars Schneider writes: >> * 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.

Re: [PATCH 00/11] git worktree (re)move

Duy Nguyen writes: > The following patch should fix it if that's the same thing you saw. I > could pile it on worktree-move series, or you can make it a separate > one-patch series. What's your preference? Giving a stable output to the users is probably a good preparatory fix

[PATCH] rev-parse: fix parent shorthands with --symbolic

The try_parent_shorthands() function shows each parent via show_rev(). We pass the correct parent sha1, but our "name" parameter still points at the original refname. So asking for a regular rev-parse works fine (it prints the sha1s), but asking for the symbolic name gives nonsense like: $

Re: Protecting old temporary objects being reused from concurrent "git gc"?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:01:35PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > 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

Re: [PATCH v15 13/27] bisect--helper: `bisect_start` shell function partially in C

Hey Stephan, On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Stephan Beyer wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/14/2016 04:14 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote: >> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> index 6a5878c..1d3e17f 100644 >> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> +++

RE: [PATCH 14/16] checkout: recurse into submodules if asked to

Sorry, my previous message accidentally sent before I was done. One more comment: > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Beller [mailto:sbel...@google.com] > +test_expect_failure '"checkout --recurse-submodules" needs -f to update > modifed submodule content' ' > + echo modified

RE: [PATCH 14/16] checkout: recurse into submodules if asked to

> -Original Message- > From: Stefan Beller [mailto:sbel...@google.com] > > diff --git a/t/lib-submodule-update.sh b/t/lib-submodule-update.sh index > 79cdd34..e0773c6 100755 > --- a/t/lib-submodule-update.sh > +++ b/t/lib-submodule-update.sh > @@ -634,7 +634,13 @@

Re: [PATCH v15 04/27] bisect--helper: `bisect_clean_state` shell function in C

Hey Junio, On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Stephan Beyer writes: > > >> +int bisect_clean_state(void) > >> +{ > >> +int result = 0; > >> + > >> +/* There may be some refs packed during bisection */ > >> +struct

Re: merge --no-ff is NOT mentioned in help

(Please reply inline) On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Vanderhoof, Tzadik wrote: > I am running:git version 2.10.1.windows.1 > > I typed: git merge -h > > and got: > > usage: git merge [] [...] >or: git merge [] HEAD >or: git merge --abort > >

RE: merge --no-ff is NOT mentioned in help

I am running:git version 2.10.1.windows.1 I typed: git merge -h and got: usage: git merge [] [...] or: git merge [] HEAD or: git merge --abort -ndo not show a diffstat at the end of the merge --statshow a diffstat at the end of the merge

Re: merge --no-ff is NOT mentioned in help

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Vanderhoof, Tzadik wrote: > When I do: "git merge -h" to get help, the option "--no-ff" is left out of > the list of options. I am running git version 2.10.0, and running git merge --help contains these lines: --ff

Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] port branch.c to use ref-filter's printing options

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Karthik Nayak writes: > >> This is part of unification of the commands 'git tag -l, git branch -l >> and git for-each-ref'. This ports over branch.c to use ref-filter's >> printing options. >> >>

merge --no-ff is NOT mentioned in help

When I do: "git merge -h" to get help, the option "--no-ff" is left out of the list of options. This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not

[PATCH v4 3/4] batch check whether submodule needs pushing into one call

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 ---

[PATCH v4 2/4] serialize collection of refs that contain submodule changes

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 --- submodule.c | 35

[PATCH v4 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question

Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt --- submodule.c | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c index 11391fa..00dd655 100644 --- a/submodule.c +++ b/submodule.c @@ -531,6 +531,17 @@ static int submodule_has_commits(const char *path,

[PATCH v4 1/4] serialize collection of changed submodules

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

[PATCH v4 0/4] Speedup finding of unpushed submodules

You can find the third iteration of this series here: http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1479221071.git.hvo...@hvoigt.net/ All comments from the last iteration should be addressed. Cheers Heiko Heiko Voigt (4): serialize collection of changed submodules serialize collection of refs that

Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] travis-ci: disable GIT_TEST_HTTPD for macOS

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:31:59AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] batch check whether submodule needs pushing into one call

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:28:31PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > > -static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, const unsigned char > > sha1[20]) > > +static int check_has_commit(const unsigned char sha1[20],

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 04:13:51PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > > >> "We do not know" ... > > > > ... because there is no way to check for us as we don't have the > > submodule commits. > > > > " We do consider it safe as no one in their sane

Re: [RFH] limiting ref advertisements

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Jeff King wrote: > Thanks for responding to this. Glad to help (or more precisely annoy you somewhat :D) > I've been meaning to get back to it with > some code experiments, but they keep getting bumped down in priority. So > let me at least

Re: [PATCH] worktree: fix a sparse 'Using plain integer as NULL pointer' warning

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:28 AM, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones > --- > > Hi Duy, > > If you need to re-roll your 'nd/worktree-move' branch, could you > please squash this into the relevant patch [commit c49e92f5c >

Re: Git status takes too long- How to improve the performance of git

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:13:57PM +0530, Renuka Pampana wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:33:12AM -0700, ravalika wrote: > > > It is an centralized server and git status takes too long > > > > A centralized server? How? git is designed to be runned locally. If > > you're running git on a

Re: [PATCH 00/11] git worktree (re)move

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > diff --git a/worktree.c b/worktree.c > index f7869f8..fe92d6f 100644 > --- a/worktree.c > +++ b/worktree.c > @@ -173,6 +173,13 @@ static void mark_current_worktree(struct worktree > **worktrees) > free(git_dir); > }

Re: [PATCH 00/11] git worktree (re)move

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 06:53:44PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > not ok 12 - move worktree > # > # git worktree move source destination && > # test_path_is_missing source && > # git worktree list --porcelain | grep "^worktree" >actual && > #

Revert on this

I have a lucrative crude oil proposal and will need your partnership. If you are willing to get involved let me know so I can give you further details on the project. Thanks, Akram F Ahmed

Re: RFC: Enable delayed responses to Git clean/smudge filter requests

On 15 Nov 2016, at 19:03, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lars Schneider 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...

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2)

Hi Junio, On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I _think_ the no-index mode was primarily for those who want to use > our diff as a replacement for GNU and other diffs, and from that > point of view, I'd favour not doing the "comparing symbolic link? > We'll show the difference between

Re: [PATCH] t0021, t5615: use $PWD instead of $(pwd) in PATH-like shell variables

Hi, On Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > 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

Re: gitweb html validation

Le 16.11.2016 01:05, Junio C Hamano a écrit : Ralf Thielow writes: Only block level elements are allowed to be inside form tags, according to https://www.w3.org/2010/04/xhtml10-strict.html#elem_form ... I think it's better to just move the -Tag outside of the