Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>>> My reading of the earlier parts of the series is that Linus wanted
>>> us never dwim "for-upstream" to "tags/for-upstream" or any other ref
>>> that happens to point at the same commit as for-upstream you have.
>>> The changes done for that purpose covered various cases a bit too
>>> widely, and "request-pull ... tags/for_upstream" were incorrectly
>>> stripped to a request to pull "for_upstream", which was fixed by
>>> 5aae66bd (request-pull: resurrect "pretty refname" feature,
>>> 2014-02-25).
>>> But that fix does not resurrect the dwimming forbid by the earlier
>>> parts of the series to turn "for_upstream" into "tags/for_upstream".
>>> What would you get if you do this?
>>>     $ git request-pull origin/master \
>>>       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/mst/qemu.git \
>>>       tags/for_upstream | grep git.kernel.org
>> I get
>>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/mst/qemu.git tags/for_upstream
> Thanks for double-checking.  Let's close this as working as
> intended, then.
> I personally feel that the "intention" tightened the logic a bit too
> much [*1*], and with the updates mentioned in [*2*], existing users
> may find it still too tight, but that is what we have today.
> [References]
> *1* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240860
> *2* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240886

An update.

In the ideal world, I think it would be nice to make

    $ git request-pull $mine $URL for_upstream

explicitly say "Please pull tags/for_upstream" rather than without
"tags/" prefix to accomodate older Git, where

    $ git pull $URL for_upstream

did not DWIM to fetch and merge tags/for_upstream and the user had
to say "tags/for_upstream" instead.

That "older Git" refers to those without 47d84b6a (fetch: allow "git
fetch $there v1.0" to fetch a tag, 2011-11-04).  v1.7.10 (tagged on
April 6th, 2012) and later versions of Git will notice that the name
refers to the tags/for_upstream just fine, so I think it is fair to
label this as a minor cosmetic regression whose fix can wait for a
future maintenance release, rather than a blocker for the upcoming

I _think_ the fix, without breaking the spirit of Linus's "I do not
want the thing DWIM based on what the remote end has" original,
would be as simple as this patch.  We can queue it as a regression
fix and do another round of -rc4 if those who depend on request-pull
heavily feel strongly about it.


 git-request-pull.sh | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/git-request-pull.sh b/git-request-pull.sh
index 5c15997..d5500fd 100755
--- a/git-request-pull.sh
+++ b/git-request-pull.sh
@@ -119,6 +119,12 @@ then
+# Special case: turn "for_linus" to "tags/for_linus" when it is correct
+if test "$ref" = "refs/tags/$pretty_remote"
+       pretty_remote=tags/$pretty_remote
 url=$(git ls-remote --get-url "$url")
 git show -s --format='The following changes since commit %H:

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to