Re: [Possible GIT Bug]
"Eckhard Maaß" writes: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:03:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> It is neither but if I have to pick one between the two, it is much >> closer to the former than the latter. The primary source of this is >> that we have only *one* pathspec given to the diff machinery, but in >> order to implement your ideal "find harder", you'd need *two*. That >> is, one set of paths for which you are interested in their origin, >> and the other set that you allow the machinery to consider as possible >> origins. Since we can only give one pathspec machinery, that one >> pathspec is used to specify both of these sets. > > How does tihs compare to `--follow`? With that knob active the machinery > indeed uses the whole repository for finding renames and/or copies. Is > this the only exception then? '--follow' is a checkbox hack that is not even properly integrated with the diff machinery (it only exists on the "log" side of the tool), so I do not think it is productive to find a comparison.
Re: [Possible GIT Bug]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:03:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > It is neither but if I have to pick one between the two, it is much > closer to the former than the latter. The primary source of this is > that we have only *one* pathspec given to the diff machinery, but in > order to implement your ideal "find harder", you'd need *two*. That > is, one set of paths for which you are interested in their origin, > and the other set that you allow the machinery to consider as possible > origins. Since we can only give one pathspec machinery, that one > pathspec is used to specify both of these sets. How does tihs compare to `--follow`? With that knob active the machinery indeed uses the whole repository for finding renames and/or copies. Is this the only exception then? Take care, Eckhard
Re: [Possible GIT Bug]
Jeff King writes: > Your explanation is correct. To be fair, though, it seems like > --find-copies-harder is made a lot less useful by the not considering > the larger set of sources, since that's kind of its point. I'm not sure > if this behavior actually is intentional, or simply what happens to > occur based on the combination of features. It is neither but if I have to pick one between the two, it is much closer to the former than the latter. The primary source of this is that we have only *one* pathspec given to the diff machinery, but in order to implement your ideal "find harder", you'd need *two*. That is, one set of paths for which you are interested in their origin, and the other set that you allow the machinery to consider as possible origins. Since we can only give one pathspec machinery, that one pathspec is used to specify both of these sets.
Re: [Possible GIT Bug]
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 12:04:58PM -0700, Bryan Turner wrote: > Here, though, you've _explicitly limited_ Git to only the copied file. > It's not allowed to consider any others, which means it can't "see" > the source path anymore. As a result, the copy is detected as a > straight add. Note that --find-copies-harder means the diff machinery > is allowed to consider files that weren't modified in the commit as > possible sources for copies, but that's still subject to your explicit > filtering. In other words, if PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE wasn't modified, > running this would _not_ see a copy: > > git show -C 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- > PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE > > But running this would: > > git show -C -C 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- > PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE > > No bugs here. Everything is working as intended, if not, perhaps, as > you expected. Your explanation is correct. To be fair, though, it seems like --find-copies-harder is made a lot less useful by the not considering the larger set of sources, since that's kind of its point. I'm not sure if this behavior actually is intentional, or simply what happens to occur based on the combination of features. You can do: git log -C C --full-diff $commit -- $path to limit a traversal to commits touching $path, but still see the full diff (including possible copy sources). But AFAIK there's no option to limit the diff, but include extra copy sources. I'd be tempted to say we should do that automatically when --find-copies-harder is in effect, but it's possible that some people actually do want the current behavior. For a single path it's silly, but if you did something like this: git show -C -C $commit -- foo/ that would find differences in the foo/ directory, and find copies only from sources in foo/. That limits the result, but also limits the effort, which can be important given the cost of copy detection. -Peff
Re: [Possible GIT Bug]
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:31 AM Dylan Young wrote: > > Works: > > git show -C --find-copies-harder 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 > > git show -C --find-copies-harder > 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 --name-status Here, because you didn't provide _any_ paths, Git is allowed to consider all of the paths modified in the commit and, because you specified --find-copies-harder, it's allowed to consider paths that _weren't_ modified too. That means it can "see" both the source and destination for the copy, and it detects the copy as you're expecting. > > Doesn’t Work: > > git show -C --find-copies-harder > 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE Here, though, you've _explicitly limited_ Git to only the copied file. It's not allowed to consider any others, which means it can't "see" the source path anymore. As a result, the copy is detected as a straight add. Note that --find-copies-harder means the diff machinery is allowed to consider files that weren't modified in the commit as possible sources for copies, but that's still subject to your explicit filtering. In other words, if PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE wasn't modified, running this would _not_ see a copy: git show -C 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE But running this would: git show -C -C 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE PATH_TO_SOURCE_FILE No bugs here. Everything is working as intended, if not, perhaps, as you expected. Hope this helps, Bryan > > i.e. > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/ PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE > > Hope that’s self-explanatory!!! > > Best, > Casey Meijer
Fwd: [Possible GIT Bug]
Works: git show -C --find-copies-harder 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 git show -C --find-copies-harder 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 --name-status Doesn’t Work: git show -C --find-copies-harder 055f6c89fa4506037d1621761f13430f469b8029 -- PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE i.e. --- /dev/null +++ b/ PATH_TO_MY_COPIED_FILE Hope that’s self-explanatory!!! Best, Casey Meijer
Re: Possible git bug
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 07:42:11AM +0200, Daniel Knittl-Frank wrote: So would that be a bug? Or maybe a feature? I would like it that when you do a rebase and select no commits, it will rebase ontop of the commit you chose, and remove all the commits not shown in the interactive listing (so all). You can just use `git reset --hard commit to rollback to` to discard all commits after the given commit (Unless they're part of another branch, of course). `git reset --soft` if you want to keep the state of your current working directory. You can also use a noop line in the rebase instruction list rather than a completely blank list to mean yes, really, do not apply any commits. -Peff -- 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
Possible git bug
Hey, Not sure if this is a bug or not. I commonly am finding myself wanting to remove some recent commits, either all or just a select few. So I use rebase in interactive mode for this. The problem I find is that when I do a rebase and leave no commits to pick (where I would think that this would do the same as a reset --hard) just tells me that there is nothing to be done. So would that be a bug? Or maybe a feature? I would like it that when you do a rebase and select no commits, it will rebase ontop of the commit you chose, and remove all the commits not shown in the interactive listing (so all). Any ideas are welcome. Cheers, Hugh -- 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: Possible git bug
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Hugh Davenport h...@davenport.net.nz wrote: Hey, Not sure if this is a bug or not. I commonly am finding myself wanting to remove some recent commits, either all or just a select few. So I use rebase in interactive mode for this. The problem I find is that when I do a rebase and leave no commits to pick (where I would think that this would do the same as a reset --hard) just tells me that there is nothing to be done. This is left as a way to abort a rebase if you change your mind just before actually executing it. This also works parallel to committing with an empty commit message. So would that be a bug? Or maybe a feature? I would like it that when you do a rebase and select no commits, it will rebase ontop of the commit you chose, and remove all the commits not shown in the interactive listing (so all). You can just use `git reset --hard commit to rollback to` to discard all commits after the given commit (Unless they're part of another branch, of course). `git reset --soft` if you want to keep the state of your current working directory. Cheers, Daniel -- typed with http://neo-layout.org -- 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
