Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
Josh Steadmon writes: > The first two patches (test cleanup and packet_reader refactor) are OK, > but the latter two will break the archive command when an old client > attempts to talk to a new server (due to the version advertisement > problem noted in [1]). Sorry that I didn't catch that these had made it > into next. Thanks. Will hld.
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
On 2018.10.12 23:53, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * js/remote-archive-v2 (2018-09-28) 4 commits > (merged to 'next' on 2018-10-12 at 5f34377f60) > + archive: allow archive over HTTP(S) with proto v2 > + archive: implement protocol v2 archive command > + archive: use packet_reader for communications > + archive: follow test standards around assertions > > The original implementation of "git archive --remote" more or less > bypassed the transport layer and did not work over http(s). The > version 2 of the protocol is defined to allow going over http(s) as > well as Git native transport. > > Will merge to 'master'. The first two patches (test cleanup and packet_reader refactor) are OK, but the latter two will break the archive command when an old client attempts to talk to a new server (due to the version advertisement problem noted in [1]). Sorry that I didn't catch that these had made it into next. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180927223314.ga230...@google.com/#t
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:03 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
> >> * sb/submodule-recursive-fetch-gets-the-tip (2018-10-11) 9 commits
> >> . builtin/fetch: check for submodule updates for non branch fetches
> >> . fetch: retry fetching submodules if needed objects were not fetched
> >> . submodule: fetch in submodules git directory instead of in worktree
> >> . repository: repo_submodule_init to take a submodule struct
> >> . submodule.c: do not copy around submodule list
> >> . submodule.c: move global changed_submodule_names into fetch submodule
> >> struct
> >> . submodule.c: sort changed_submodule_names before searching it
> >> . submodule.c: fix indentation
> >> . sha1-array: provide oid_array_filter
> >>
> >> "git fetch --recurse-submodules" may not fetch the necessary commit
> >> that is bound to the superproject, which is getting corrected.
> >>
> >> Ejected for now, as it has fallouts in places like t/helper/.
> >
> > This is the first time I hear about that, I'll look into that.
> > The tipmost commit there is also shoddy, I'll redo that.
>
> This is the first time I saw the breakage with this series, but I
> would not be suprised, as this was rerolled recently. Who knows
> what got changed in this series and in other topics---any new
> interaction can arise and that is a normal part of distributed
> development.
I performed the same merge last week, and the range-diff indicates,
that your version of next was further ahead than mine.
The breakage itself comes from
t/helper/test-submodule-nested-repo-config.c: In function
‘cmd__submodule_nested_repo_config’:
t/helper/test-submodule-nested-repo-config.c:20:54: warning: passing
argument 3 of ‘repo_submodule_init’ from incompatible pointer type
[-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
if (repo_submodule_init(, the_repository, argv[1])) {
^~~~
In file included from ./cache.h:17:0,
from ./submodule-config.h:4,
from t/helper/test-submodule-nested-repo-config.c:2:
./repository.h:126:5: note: expected ‘const struct submodule *’ but
argument is of type ‘const char *’
int repo_submodule_init(struct repository *subrepo,
^~~
which is introduced by
commit c369da44610acc5e56213b8784d4250ae619fdb9
(origin/ao/submodule-wo-gitmodules-checked-out)
Author: Antonio Ospite
Date: 2018-10-05 15:06
t/helper: add test-submodule-nested-repo-config
Add a test tool to exercise config_from_gitmodules(), in particular for
the case of nested submodules.
Add also a test to document that reading the submoudles config of nested
submodules does not work yet when the .gitmodules file is not in the
working tree but it still in the index.
This is because the git API does not always make it possible access the
object store of an arbitrary repository (see get_oid() usage in
config_from_gitmodules()).
When this git limitation gets fixed the aforementioned use case will be
supported too.
Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano
My resend will take that into account, building on Antonios series.
Thanks,
Stefan
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
Stefan Beller writes: >> * sb/submodule-recursive-fetch-gets-the-tip (2018-10-11) 9 commits >> . builtin/fetch: check for submodule updates for non branch fetches >> . fetch: retry fetching submodules if needed objects were not fetched >> . submodule: fetch in submodules git directory instead of in worktree >> . repository: repo_submodule_init to take a submodule struct >> . submodule.c: do not copy around submodule list >> . submodule.c: move global changed_submodule_names into fetch submodule >> struct >> . submodule.c: sort changed_submodule_names before searching it >> . submodule.c: fix indentation >> . sha1-array: provide oid_array_filter >> >> "git fetch --recurse-submodules" may not fetch the necessary commit >> that is bound to the superproject, which is getting corrected. >> >> Ejected for now, as it has fallouts in places like t/helper/. > > This is the first time I hear about that, I'll look into that. > The tipmost commit there is also shoddy, I'll redo that. This is the first time I saw the breakage with this series, but I would not be suprised, as this was rerolled recently. Who knows what got changed in this series and in other topics---any new interaction can arise and that is a normal part of distributed development. The xx/sb-submodule-recursive-fetch-gets-the-tip-in-pu branch at git://github.com/gitster/git.git has a merge of this into 'pu', with textual conflicts all resolved. At least t/helper/test-submodule-nested-repo-config.c fails to build; I didn't check if there are other breakages.
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:44 PM Stefan Beller wrote: > > * sb/submodule-recursive-fetch-gets-the-tip (2018-10-11) 9 commits > > . builtin/fetch: check for submodule updates for non branch fetches > > . fetch: retry fetching submodules if needed objects were not fetched > > . submodule: fetch in submodules git directory instead of in worktree > > . repository: repo_submodule_init to take a submodule struct > > . submodule.c: do not copy around submodule list > > . submodule.c: move global changed_submodule_names into fetch submodule > > struct > > . submodule.c: sort changed_submodule_names before searching it > > . submodule.c: fix indentation > > . sha1-array: provide oid_array_filter > > > > "git fetch --recurse-submodules" may not fetch the necessary commit > > that is bound to the superproject, which is getting corrected. > > > > Ejected for now, as it has fallouts in places like t/helper/. > > This is the first time I hear about that, I'll look into that. I looked into that, and merging with origin/next only had one merge conflict in submodule.c, easy to resolve. It builds and tests cleanly after that. What fallouts did you observe? > The tipmost commit there is also shoddy, I'll redo that. I confused this series with sb/submodule-update-in-C which got merged already, I may send a fixup commit there. So it seems to me that this series is still good. Thanks, Stefan
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
> > * sb/strbuf-h-update (2018-09-29) 1 commit > - strbuf.h: format according to coding guidelines > > Code clean-up to serve as a BCP example. > > What's the status of this one after the discussion thread stopped here? > cf. I started rewriting the documentation according to your proposal of having parameters with name, then referred to as NAME in the docs. After a few examples, I must admit I do not like that style, so I would just want to do the minimal part that would get this patch landed, i.e. (a) convince you that the patch is good as-is or (b) resend with fewer parameters made explicit if we desire to be concise instead. > * nd/the-index (2018-09-21) 23 commits > (merged to 'next' on 2018-10-10 at 16e2e2e947) [...] > (this branch is used by sb/more-repo-in-api.) > > Various codepaths in the core-ish part learn to work on an > arbitrary in-core index structure, not necessarily the default > instance "the_index". > > Will merge to 'master'. Cool! sb/more-repo-in-api is not part of this message, but it requires at least one resend, so I'll do that. > * sb/submodule-recursive-fetch-gets-the-tip (2018-10-11) 9 commits > . builtin/fetch: check for submodule updates for non branch fetches > . fetch: retry fetching submodules if needed objects were not fetched > . submodule: fetch in submodules git directory instead of in worktree > . repository: repo_submodule_init to take a submodule struct > . submodule.c: do not copy around submodule list > . submodule.c: move global changed_submodule_names into fetch submodule > struct > . submodule.c: sort changed_submodule_names before searching it > . submodule.c: fix indentation > . sha1-array: provide oid_array_filter > > "git fetch --recurse-submodules" may not fetch the necessary commit > that is bound to the superproject, which is getting corrected. > > Ejected for now, as it has fallouts in places like t/helper/. This is the first time I hear about that, I'll look into that. The tipmost commit there is also shoddy, I'll redo that.
Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2018, #02; Sat, 13)
On Fri, Oct 12 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * ab/gc-doc-update (2018-10-11) 1 commit > - gc doc: mention the commit-graph in the intro > > The documentation of "git gc" has been updated to mention that it > is no longer limited to "pruning away crufts" but also updates > ancillary files like commit-graph as a part of repository > optimization. > > Waiting for reactions. > cf. <20181010193818.20399-1-ava...@gmail.com> > The author seems to feel that this might be controversial. Probably shouldn't have mentioned that. SZEDER I think had more issues with the "that's not GC" parts of what git-gc is doing, so I'll let him chime in. I'm working on a more general update to gc.c which might bring it more in the "not really GC anymore" direction. But this patch is just describing the status quo, so I think it should be uncontroversial to merge it, or at least we can have the discussion about what we should do in a different venue than a doc fixup for accurately describing what we're doing now. Another topic: As noted in <20181010193235.17359-1-ava...@gmail.com> and this follow-up https://public-inbox.org/git/87h8hsexdm@evledraar.gmail.com/ it would be great if you could pick up the "gc: remove redundant check for gc_auto_threshold" patch. A small change that makes later refactoring a tiny bit smaller and easier to understand.
