Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
diff --git a/fsck.c b/fsck.c
index dd77628..9dd7d12 100644
--- a/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck.c
@@ -237,6 +237,26 @@ static int fsck_tree(struct tree *item, int strict,
fsck_error
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
+ test_when_finished git update-ref -d refs/tags/wrong
+ git fsck --tags 2out
I wonder what the command does with or without --tags option
(applies to both tests added by
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
+tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin wrong-tag)
+pack1=$(echo $tag | git pack-objects tag-test)
+echo remove tag object
+thirtyeight=${tag#??}
+rm -f
When fsck'ing an incoming pack, we need to fsck objects that cannot be
read via read_sha1_file() because they are not local yet (and might even
be rejected if transfer.fsckobjects is set to 'true').
For commits, there is a hack in place: we basically cache commit
objects' buffers anyway, but the
In the next commits, we will enhance the fsck_tag() function to check
tag objects more thoroughly. To this end, we need a function to verify
that a given string is a valid object type, but that does not die() in
the negative case.
While at it, prepare type_from_string() for counted strings, i.e.
This patch series introduces detailed checking of tag objects when calling
git fsck, and also when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true.
To this end, the fsck machinery is reworked to accept the buffer and size
of the object to check, and for commit and tag objects, we verify that the
buffers
So far, we assumed that the buffer is NUL terminated, but this is not
a safe assumption, now that we opened the fsck_object() API to pass a
buffer directly.
So let's make sure that there is at least an empty line in the buffer.
That way, our checks would fail if the empty line was encountered
One of the most important use cases for the strict tag object checking
is when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true to catch invalid objects
early on. This new regression test essentially tests the same code path
by directly calling 'index-pack --strict' on a pack containing an
tag object without a
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
This patch series introduces detailed checking of tag objects when calling
git fsck, and also when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true.
We inspect commit objects pretty much in detail in git-fsck, but we just
glanced over the tag objects. Let's be stricter.
Since we do not want to limit 'tag' lines unduly, values that would fail
the refname check only result in warnings, not errors.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin
The intent of the new test case is to catch general breakages in
the fsck_tag() function, not so much to test it extensively, trying to
strike the proper balance between thoroughness and speed.
While it *would* have been nice to test the code path where fsck_object()
encounters an invalid tag
On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
git checkout --to sets up a new working directory with a .git file
pointing to $GIT_DIR/worktrees/id. It then executes git checkout
again on the new worktree with the same arguments except --to is
taken out. The second checkout execution, which
The single-parameter form is described as the preferred way. Separate
arguments are only supported for backward compatibility. Update the
example to the recommended form.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de
---
Documentation/git-update-index.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1
On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
(alias R=$GIT_COMMON_DIR/worktrees/id)
- linked checkouts are supposed to keep its location in $R/gitdir up
to date. The use case is auto fixup after a manual checkout move.
- linked checkouts are supposed to update mtime of $R/gitdir.
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
+ for (i = 0; i size; i++) {
+ switch (buffer[i]) {
+ case '\0':
+ return error_func(obj, FSCK_ERROR,
+ invalid message: NUL at offset %d, i);
Isn't this invalid
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
+tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin wrong-tag)
+pack1=$(echo $tag | git pack-objects tag-test)
+echo remove
Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
And of course a few additional tests to t4205 would not hurt ;-)
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to
Hi Junio,
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
+tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin wrong-tag)
+
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
This has a fairly straightforward conflict with the ref-transaction
stuff in pu. The oldrefname parameter to is_refname_available became a
list of items;
Hmph, the trouble I had while reading the conflicts was about the
new we skip these when repacking, not
Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently active
branch from the cloned repository. If a branch is specified using the
`--branch` command, the 'submodule add' will result in an error as the
branch
Max Kirillov m...@max630.net writes:
If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
preserved unless it has changed in this instance
It would have been easier to understand why this is a desirable
change if you stated what problem you are trying to solve before
that sentence.
On 11/09/14 17:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
Would you like me to resubmit it as a single patch, or are you applying
them as is?
And of course a few additional tests
Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de writes:
The single-parameter form is described as the preferred way. Separate
arguments are only supported for backward compatibility. Update the
example to the recommended form.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de
---
My fault. Thanks for
Hello all,
In many situations, if you have a submodule conflict during a rebase,
and you type 'git diff' to get a summary of the situation, you will get
an empty diff. Here's a simple transcript for one such case (I'm sorry
I can't make it much shorter), tested on git version 2.0.3.693.g996b0fd:
Johannes Schindelin johannes.schinde...@gmx.de writes:
One of the most important use cases for the strict tag object checking
is when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true to catch invalid objects
early on. This new regression test essentially tests the same code path
by directly calling
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
This has a fairly straightforward conflict with the ref-transaction
stuff in pu. The oldrefname parameter to is_refname_available became a
list of items;
Hmph, the trouble I had while
Hi,
Is there a way to update the stat information recorded in the index without
reading the file content from disk?
Starting from a clean working copy with a committed `file`, I'd like
touch file
git magic-command file
to bring the index into essentially the same state as
touch
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg sahlb...@google.com
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Eliminate a layer of nesting.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
lockfile.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg sahlb...@google.com
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
It is only necessary to clear the lock_file's filename field if it was
not already clear.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
lockfile.c | 2
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Max Kirillov m...@max630.net writes:
If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
preserved unless it has changed in this instance
It would have been easier to understand why this is a desirable
change if
This notification is from your IT Helpdesk Service. We have detected your
Mailbox is out of date. We want to upgrade all email account scheduled for
today. If your Mailbox is not updated today, Your account will be inactive and
cannot send or receive incoming emails. To complete this
Am 11.09.2014 um 19:11 schrieb Cole Minnaar:
Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently active
branch from the cloned repository. If a branch is specified using the
`--branch` command, the
Am 11.09.2014 um 19:50 schrieb ezyang:
Hello all,
In many situations, if you have a submodule conflict during a rebase,
and you type 'git diff' to get a summary of the situation, you will get
an empty diff. Here's a simple transcript for one such case (I'm sorry
I can't make it much shorter),
Am 08.09.2014 um 19:29 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Thomas Rast t...@thomasrast.ch writes:
The existing code passed revs-dense_combined_merges along revs itself
into the combine-diff functions, which is rather redundant. Remove
the 'dense' argument until much further down the callchain to simplify
Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk writes:
On 11/09/14 17:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
Would you like me to resubmit it as a single patch, or are you
applying them as
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg sahlb...@google.com
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
This makes it obvious that we have no plans to change the integer
pointed to, which is actually the fd field from a struct lock_file.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg sahlb...@google.com
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Document the valid states of lock_file objects, how they get into each
state, and how the state is encoded in the object's fields.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
Max Kirillov m...@max630.net writes:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Max Kirillov m...@max630.net writes:
If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
preserved unless it has changed in this instance
It would have been easier to
Excerpts from Jens Lehmann's message of 2014-09-11 21:21:04 +0200:
Am 11.09.2014 um 19:11 schrieb Cole Minnaar:
Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently
active
branch from the cloned
githooks(5) suggests:
Information about why the push is rejected may be sent to the user
by writing to standard error.
So follow that advice in the sample.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
templates/hooks--pre-push.sample | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
Steffen Prohaska proha...@zib.de writes:
Hi,
Is there a way to update the stat information recorded in the index without
reading the file content from disk?
Starting from a clean working copy with a committed `file`, I'd like
touch file
git magic-command file
to bring the
Most of the knobs that affect helper functions called from
cmd_hash_object() were passed to them as parameters already, and the
only effect of having them as file-scope statics was to make the
reader wonder if the parameters are hiding the file-scope global
values by accident. Adjust their
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
When our toolset has become too tight without leaving enough escape
hatch to hinder further development, it is very sensible to at least
think about adding a new --for-debug option to hash-object and
pack-objects that allows us to deliberately create
Our toolset may have become too tight without leaving enough escape
hatch to hinder further development. hash-object makes minimum
sanity checks by default for a very good reason, but it means that
we cannot deliberately create broken datastreams to test against
fsck and other codepaths that are
This is allows hash-object --stdin to just hash any garbage into a
loose object that may not pass the standard object parsing check
or fsck, so that different kind of corrupt objects third-party tools
may create can be imitated in our test suite. That would in turn
allow us to test features that
Instead of forcing callers of lower level functions write
(write_object ? HASH_WRITE_OBJECT : 0), prepare the flag to be
passed down in the callchain from the command line parser.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
---
builtin/hash-object.c | 32 +++-
1
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
The next series from Ronnie's collection is available at
https://code-review.googlesource.com/#/q/topic:ref-transaction in case
someone wants a fresh series to look at.
Here is the outcome of that review. It could use
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
There are a few places that use these values, so define constants for
them.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
cache.h| 4
lockfile.c | 11 ++-
refs.c | 7 ---
3
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
These patches are also available from the git repository at
git://repo.or.cz/git/jrn.git tags/rs/ref-transaction
The tag fetched and built as-is seems to break 5514 among other
things (git remote rm segfaults).
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk writes:
The prefix, separator and suffix for decorations are hard-coded. Make
format_decorations more flexible by having the caller specify the
prefix, separator and suffix.
Signed-off-by: Harry Jeffery ha...@exec64.co.uk
---
log-tree.c | 16
Maybe we should not have a public constant defined for the length :
+#define LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN 5
since it encourages unsafe code like : (this was unsafe long before
your patch so not a regression)
+ i = strlen(result_file) - LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN; /* .lock */
result_file[i] = 0;
What
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg sahlb...@google.com
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
This is a bit easier to read than the old version, which nested part
of the non-error code in an if block.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
---
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 third batch of topics have graduated to 'master'. There are too
many topics waiting to be in 'next' but without comments and reviews
on
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Here is the patch I wrote, for reference (I also think breaking the
matches function into a series of conditionals, as you showed, is way
more readable):
OK, while reviewing the today's issue of What's cooking and making
topics graduate to 'master', I got
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
These patches are also available from the git repository at
git://repo.or.cz/git/jrn.git tags/rs/ref-transaction
The tag fetched and built as-is seems to break 5514 among other
things (git remote rm segfaults).
Yeah, I
Is there a way to get a log of first parent commits and with each commit a
entry a list of the files that were changed?
SPS
Sent from my iPhone--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:16:26AM +0530, Stephen Smith wrote:
Is there a way to get a log of first parent commits and with each
commit a entry a list of the files that were changed?
How about:
git log --first-parent -m --name-only
The --first-parent restricts the traversal. The -m tells
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:35:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Here is the patch I wrote, for reference (I also think breaking the
matches function into a series of conditionals, as you showed, is way
more readable):
OK, while reviewing the today's
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Marc Branchaud marcn...@xiplink.com wrote:
On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
(alias R=$GIT_COMMON_DIR/worktrees/id)
- linked checkouts are supposed to keep its location in $R/gitdir up
to date. The use case is auto fixup after a manual
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Upon finding a corrupt loose object, we forgot to note the error to
signal it with the exit status of the entire process.
[jc: adjusted t1450 and added another test]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
[+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:38:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Fsck tries hard to detect missing objects, and will complain
(and exit non-zero) about any inter-object links that are
missing. However, it will not exit non-zero for any missing
ref tips, meaning
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:29:39AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Dropping curate_packed_ref_fn (as below) fixes the test above. And
miraculously does not even seem to conflict with ref patches in pu. :)
Of course I spoke too soon. The patch I sent is actually based on pu. It
is easy to make the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:19:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Something like the patch below might work, but I didn't test it very
thoroughly (and note the comments, which might need dealing with). Maybe
it would make a sensible base for Harry to build
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
[+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
If we only have a packed copy of refs/heads/master and it is broken,
then deleting any _other_ unrelated ref will cause refs/heads/master to
be dropped from the packed-refs file entirely. We
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:58:45PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
[+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
If we only have a packed copy of refs/heads/master and it is broken,
then deleting any _other_ unrelated ref will cause
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Cole wrote:
Also if there is anything else you are currently looking at regarding
submodules or thinking about, I would be glad to hear about it or to try
look at it while I am working on these changes. Or if there is anything
you can think of for me
66 matches
Mail list logo
