Re: [PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs
Felipe Contreras writes: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Max Horn wrote: >> >> On 28.11.2012, at 23:23, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >>> They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that. >>> >>> Currently the first ref is handled properly, but not the rest: >>> >>> % git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar >> >> All these refs are assumed to point to the same object, right? I think it >> would be better if the commit message stated that explicitly. To make up for >> the lost space, you could then get rid of one of the four refs, I think >> three are sufficient to drive the message home ;-). > > Yeah, they point to the same object. Do you want me to amend the log message of that commit to clarify this? >> >> > ... > It's actually revs.cmdline, I typed the wrong one. > ... > So I think it's good. Wait. I at least read two points above you said what you wrote in the commit was not corrrect and misleading to later readers. And then I hear "it's good". Which one? Are you merely saying that it is easily fixable to become good? If so, what do you want to do with these not-so-good part? If you want to ask me to amend, that is fine, but do so in a more explicit way, not in a message at the tail of long thread that is not even CC'ed to me. Of course, a proper re-roll like everybody else does is just fine. Thanks. -- 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
Re: [PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Max Horn wrote: > > On 28.11.2012, at 23:23, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that. >> >> Currently the first ref is handled properly, but not the rest: >> >> % git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar > > All these refs are assumed to point to the same object, right? I think it > would be better if the commit message stated that explicitly. To make up for > the lost space, you could then get rid of one of the four refs, I think three > are sufficient to drive the message home ;-). Yeah, they point to the same object. > > >> The reason this happens is that before traversing the commits, >> fast-export checks if any of the refs point to the same object, and any >> duplicated ref gets added to a list in order to issue 'reset' commands >> after the traversing. Unfortunately, it's not even checking if the >> commit is flagged as UNINTERESTING. The fix of course, is to do >> precisely that. > > Hm... So this might be me being a stupid n00b (I am not yet that familiar > with the internal rep of things in git and all...)... but I found the > "precisely that" par very confusing, because right afterwards, you say: Yeah, the next part was added afterwards. >> However, in order to do it properly we need to get the UNINTERESTING flag >> from the command line ref, not from the commit object. > > So this sounds like you are saying "we do *precisely* that, except we don't, > because it is more complicated, so we actually don't do this *precisely*, > just manner of speaking..." Well, we do check fro the UNINTERESTING flag, but on the ref, not on the commit. > Some details here are beyond my knowledge, I am afraid, so I have to resort > to guess: In particular it is not clear to me why the "however" part pops up: > Reading it makes it sound as if the commit object also carries an > UNINTERESTING flag, but we can't use it because of some reason (perhaps it > doesn't have the semantics we need?), so we have to look at revs.pending > instead. Right? Wrong? Or is it because the commit objects actually do *not* > carry the UNINTERESTING bits, hence we need to look at revs.pending. Or is it > due to yet another reason? It's actually revs.cmdline, I typed the wrong one. If you have two refs pointing to the same object, and you do 'one ^two', the object (e.g. 8c7a786) will get the UNINTERESTING flag, but that doesn't tell us anything about the ref being a positive or a negative one, and revs.pending only has the object flags. On the other hand revs.cmdline does have the flags for the refs. Does that explain it? > Anyway, other than these nitpicky questions, this whole thing looks very > logical to me, description and code alike. I also played around with tons of > "fast-export" invocations, with and without this patch, and it seems to do > what the description says. Finally, I went to the various long threads > discussion prior versions of this patch, in particular those starting at > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/208725 > and > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/209355/focus=209370 > > These contained some concerns. Sadly, several of those discussions ultimately > degenerated into not-so-pleasant exchanges :-(, and my impression is that as > a result some people are not so inclined to comment on these patches anymore > at all. Which is a pity :-(. But overall, it seems this patch makes nothing > worse, but fixes some things; and it is simple enough that it shouldn't make > future improvements harder. > > So *I* at least am quite happy with this, it helps me! My impression is that > Felipe's latest patch addresses most concerns people raised by means of an > improved description. I couldn't find any in those threads that I feel still > applies -- but of course those people should speak for themselves, I am > simply afraid they don't want to be part of this anymore :-(. Indeed. For all the concerns given I made a response to how that either is not true, or doesn't really matter, and in the case of the latter, I asked for examples where it would matter, only to receive nothing. For whatever reason involved people are not responding, not a single valid concern has been raised and remained. So I think it's good. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: [PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs
On 28.11.2012, at 23:23, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
>
> Currently the first ref is handled properly, but not the rest:
>
> % git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar
All these refs are assumed to point to the same object, right? I think it would
be better if the commit message stated that explicitly. To make up for the lost
space, you could then get rid of one of the four refs, I think three are
sufficient to drive the message home ;-).
> The reason this happens is that before traversing the commits,
> fast-export checks if any of the refs point to the same object, and any
> duplicated ref gets added to a list in order to issue 'reset' commands
> after the traversing. Unfortunately, it's not even checking if the
> commit is flagged as UNINTERESTING. The fix of course, is to do
> precisely that.
Hm... So this might be me being a stupid n00b (I am not yet that familiar with
the internal rep of things in git and all...)... but I found the "precisely
that" par very confusing, because right afterwards, you say:
>
> However, in order to do it properly we need to get the UNINTERESTING flag
> from the command line ref, not from the commit object.
So this sounds like you are saying "we do *precisely* that, except we don't,
because it is more complicated, so we actually don't do this *precisely*, just
manner of speaking..."
Some details here are beyond my knowledge, I am afraid, so I have to resort to
guess: In particular it is not clear to me why the "however" part pops up:
Reading it makes it sound as if the commit object also carries an UNINTERESTING
flag, but we can't use it because of some reason (perhaps it doesn't have the
semantics we need?), so we have to look at revs.pending instead. Right? Wrong?
Or is it because the commit objects actually do *not* carry the UNINTERESTING
bits, hence we need to look at revs.pending. Or is it due to yet another reason?
I would find it helpful if that could be clarified. E.g. like so:
"The fix is to add such a check. However, we cannot just use the UNINTERESTING
flag of the commit object, because INSERT-REASON."
or
"The fix is to add such a check. However, the commit object does not contain
the UNINTERESTING flag directly."
or something.
Anyway, other than these nitpicky questions, this whole thing looks very
logical to me, description and code alike. I also played around with tons of
"fast-export" invocations, with and without this patch, and it seems to do what
the description says. Finally, I went to the various long threads discussion
prior versions of this patch, in particular those starting at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/208725
and
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/209355/focus=209370
These contained some concerns. Sadly, several of those discussions ultimately
degenerated into not-so-pleasant exchanges :-(, and my impression is that as a
result some people are not so inclined to comment on these patches anymore at
all. Which is a pity :-(. But overall, it seems this patch makes nothing worse,
but fixes some things; and it is simple enough that it shouldn't make future
improvements harder.
So *I* at least am quite happy with this, it helps me! My impression is that
Felipe's latest patch addresses most concerns people raised by means of an
improved description. I couldn't find any in those threads that I feel still
applies -- but of course those people should speak for themselves, I am simply
afraid they don't want to be part of this anymore :-(.
Still, for what little it might be worth, I think this patch is good and a real
improvement. I hope it can be merged soon.
Cheers,
Max
> Fortunately we
> can simply use revs.pending, which contains all the information we need
> for get_tags_and_duplicates(), plus the ref flag. This way the rest of
> the positive refs will remain untouched; it's only the negative ones
> that change in behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
> builtin/fast-export.c | 11 +++
> t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh | 8
> t/t9350-fast-export.sh| 30 ++
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/fast-export.c b/builtin/fast-export.c
> index 191936c..2547e6c 100644
> --- a/builtin/fast-export.c
> +++ b/builtin/fast-export.c
> @@ -474,18 +474,21 @@ static void handle_tag(const char *name, struct tag
> *tag)
> (int)message_size, (int)message_size, message ? message : "");
> }
>
> -static void get_tags_and_duplicates(struct object_array *pending,
> +static void get_tags_and_duplicates(struct rev_cmdline_info *info,
> struct string_list *extra_refs)
> {
> struct tag *tag;
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < pending->nr; i++) {
> - struct object_array_entry *e = pending->objects + i;
> + for (i = 0; i <
[PATCH v7 p2 1/2] fast-export: don't handle uninteresting refs
They have been marked as UNINTERESTING for a reason, lets respect that.
Currently the first ref is handled properly, but not the rest:
% git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar
reset refs/heads/bar
from :0
reset refs/heads/foo
from :0
reset refs/heads/uninteresting
from :0
% git fast-export ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar master
reset refs/heads/master
from :0
reset refs/heads/bar
from :0
reset refs/heads/foo
from :0
Clearly this is wrong; the negative refs should be ignored.
After this patch:
% git fast-export ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar master
# nothing
% git fast-export master ^uninteresting ^foo ^bar
# nothing
And even more, it would only happen if the ref is pointing to exactly
the same commit, but not otherwise:
% git fast-export ^next next
reset refs/heads/next
from :0
% git fast-export ^next next^{commit}
# nothing
% git fast-export ^next next~0
# nothing
% git fast-export ^next next~1
# nothing
% git fast-export ^next next~2
# nothing
The reason this happens is that before traversing the commits,
fast-export checks if any of the refs point to the same object, and any
duplicated ref gets added to a list in order to issue 'reset' commands
after the traversing. Unfortunately, it's not even checking if the
commit is flagged as UNINTERESTING. The fix of course, is to do
precisely that.
However, in order to do it properly we need to get the UNINTERESTING flag
from the command line ref, not from the commit object. Fortunately we
can simply use revs.pending, which contains all the information we need
for get_tags_and_duplicates(), plus the ref flag. This way the rest of
the positive refs will remain untouched; it's only the negative ones
that change in behavior.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
builtin/fast-export.c | 11 +++
t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh | 8
t/t9350-fast-export.sh| 30 ++
3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/fast-export.c b/builtin/fast-export.c
index 191936c..2547e6c 100644
--- a/builtin/fast-export.c
+++ b/builtin/fast-export.c
@@ -474,18 +474,21 @@ static void handle_tag(const char *name, struct tag *tag)
(int)message_size, (int)message_size, message ? message : "");
}
-static void get_tags_and_duplicates(struct object_array *pending,
+static void get_tags_and_duplicates(struct rev_cmdline_info *info,
struct string_list *extra_refs)
{
struct tag *tag;
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < pending->nr; i++) {
- struct object_array_entry *e = pending->objects + i;
+ for (i = 0; i < info->nr; i++) {
+ struct rev_cmdline_entry *e = info->rev + i;
unsigned char sha1[20];
struct commit *commit;
char *full_name;
+ if (e->flags & UNINTERESTING)
+ continue;
+
if (dwim_ref(e->name, strlen(e->name), sha1, &full_name) != 1)
continue;
@@ -681,7 +684,7 @@ int cmd_fast_export(int argc, const char **argv, const char
*prefix)
if (import_filename && revs.prune_data.nr)
full_tree = 1;
- get_tags_and_duplicates(&revs.pending, &extra_refs);
+ get_tags_and_duplicates(&revs.cmdline, &extra_refs);
if (prepare_revision_walk(&revs))
die("revision walk setup failed");
diff --git a/t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh b/t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh
index 12ae256..ece8fd5 100755
--- a/t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh
+++ b/t/t5801-remote-helpers.sh
@@ -162,4 +162,12 @@ test_expect_failure 'pushing without marks' '
compare_refs local2 HEAD server HEAD
'
+test_expect_success 'push all with existing object' '
+ (cd local &&
+ git branch dup2 master &&
+ git push origin --all
+ ) &&
+ compare_refs local dup2 server dup2
+'
+
test_done
diff --git a/t/t9350-fast-export.sh b/t/t9350-fast-export.sh
index 1f59862..c8e41c1 100755
--- a/t/t9350-fast-export.sh
+++ b/t/t9350-fast-export.sh
@@ -454,4 +454,34 @@ test_expect_success 'test bidirectionality' '
git fast-import --export-marks=marks-cur --import-marks=marks-cur
'
+cat > expected << EOF
+blob
+mark :13
+data 5
+bump
+
+commit refs/heads/master
+mark :14
+author A U Thor 1112912773 -0700
+committer C O Mitter 1112912773 -0700
+data 5
+bump
+from :12
+M 100644 :13 file
+
+EOF
+
+test_expect_success 'avoid uninteresting refs' '
+ > tmp-marks &&
+ git fast-export --import-marks=tmp-marks \
+ --export-marks=tmp-marks master > /dev/null &&
+ git tag v1.0 &&
+ git branch uninteresting &&
+ echo bump > file &&
+ git commit -a -m bump &&
+ git fast-export --import-marks=tmp-marks \
+ --export-marks=tmp-marks ^uninteresting ^v1.0 master > actual &&
+ test_cmp expected actual
+'
+
test_done
--
1.8.0.1
--
To unsubscribe from this li
