On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 14:33 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Turner <dtur...@twopensource.com> writes: > > > It is possible to have two branches which are the same but for case. > > This works great on the case-sensitive filesystems, but not so well on > > case-insensitive filesystems. It is fairly typical to have > > case-insensitive clients (Macs, say) with a case-sensitive server > > (GNU/Linux). > > > > Should a user attempt to pull on a Mac when there are case-clone > > branches with differing contents, they'll get an error message > > containing something like "Ref refs/remotes/origin/lower is at > > [sha-of-lowercase-branch] but expected [sha-of-uppercase-branch].... > > (unable to update local ref)" > > > > With a case-insensitive git server, if a branch called capital-M > > Master (that differs from lowercase-m-master) is pushed, nobody else > > can push to (lowercase-m) master until the branch is removed. > > > > Create the option receive.denycaseclonebranches, which checks pushed > > branches to ensure that they are not case-clones of an existing > > branch. This setting is turned on by default if core.ignorecase is > > set, but not otherwise. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Turner <dtur...@twitter.com> > > --- > > I do not object to this new feature in principle, but I do not know > if we want to introduce a new word "case-clone refs" without adding > it to the glossary documentation.
I would be happy to add "case-clone" to the glossary -- would that be OK with you? I do not immediately think of the better term. > It feels a bit funny to tie this to core.ignorecase, which is an > attribute of the filesystem used for the working tree, though. It seems like it's an attribute of the filesystem used for the GIT_DIR (at least, that's what's actually tested in order to set it). So I think this is OK. > Updates to Documentation/config.txt and Documentation/git-push.txt > are also needed. > ... > Would it make sense to reuse the enum deny_action for this new > settings, with an eye to later convert the older boolean ones also > to use enum deny_action to make them consistent and more flexible? >... > We write C not C++ around here; the pointer-asterisk sticks to the > variable name, not typename. >...[moved] > The trailing blank line inside a function at the end is somewhat > unusual. Will fix these, thank you. Do you happen to know if there's a style checker available that I could run before committing? > > + return !strcasecmp(refname, incoming_refname) && > > + strcmp(refname, incoming_refname); > > (Mental note to the reviewer himself) This returns true iff there is > an existing ref whose name is only different in case, and cause > for-each-ref to return early with true. In a sane case of not > receiving problematic refs, this will have to iterate over all the > existing refnames. Wonder if there are better ways to optimize this > in a repository with hundreds or thousands of refs, which is not all > that uncommon. My expectation is that on average a push will involve a small number of refs -- usually exactly one. We could put the refs into a case-insensitive hashmap if we expect many refs. This ties into the general question of whether ref handling can be made O(1) or O(log N), which I think the list has not come to a satisfactory solution to. > > diff --git a/t/t5400-send-pack.sh b/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > > index 0736bcb..099c0e3 100755 > > --- a/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > > +++ b/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > > @@ -129,6 +129,26 @@ test_expect_success 'denyNonFastforwards trumps > > --force' ' > > test "$victim_orig" = "$victim_head" > > ' > > > > +if ! test_have_prereq CASE_INSENSITIVE_FS > > +then > > Hmm, don't we want the feature to kick in for both case sensitive > and case insensitive filesystems? Yes, but it's harder to test on case-insensitive filesystems because we cannot have coexisting local case-clone branches. We could test by making sure to first locally deleting the case-clone branches, I guess. I'll do that. > > +test_expect_success 'denyCaseCloneBranches works' ' > > + ( > > + cd victim && > > + git config receive.denyCaseCloneBranches true > > + git config receive.denyDeletes false > > + ) && > > + git checkout -b caseclone && > > + git send-pack ./victim caseclone && > > + git checkout -b CaseClone && > > + test_must_fail git send-pack ./victim CaseClone && > > At this point, we would want to see not just that send-pack fails > but also that "victim" does not have CaseClone branch and does have > caseclone branch pointing at the original value (i.e. we do not want > to see "caseclone" updated to a value that would have gone to > CaseClone with this push). > > Each push in the sequence should be preceded by a "git commit" or > something so that we can verify the object at the tip of the ref in > the "victim" repository, I would think. Otherwise it is hard to > tell an expected no-op that has failed and a no-op because it > mistakenly pushed the same value to a wrong ref. Will fix! -- 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