On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 12:01 AM Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 7:41 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
> wrote:
> >
> > v5 fixes some minor comments from round 4 and a big mistake in 5/5.
> > Junio's scary feeling turns out true. There is a missing invalidation
> > in keep_entry() which
(+ git-dit authors)
Kyle Meyer wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> I believe you're thinking of TicGit[1].
>>
>> Some other related work is listed at [2]. Most of these projects have
>> gone quiet:
>>
>> - ditz[3]
>> - git-issues[4]
>> - cil[5]
>> - Bugs Everywhere[6]
>> - milli by Steve Kemp,
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM Jeff King wrote:
> > - we should avoid anyone who is affiliated with a company that already
> >has a member on the committee. So nobody from Google and nobody from
> >GitHub. I would extend
[+cc Stefan Monnier]
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> (cc-ing Scott)
[...]
> I believe you're thinking of TicGit[1].
>
> Some other related work is listed at [2]. Most of these projects have
> gone quiet:
>
> - ditz[3]
> - git-issues[4]
> - cil[5]
> - Bugs Everywhere[6]
> - milli by Steve Kemp,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM Jeff King wrote:
> - we should avoid anyone who is affiliated with a company that already
>has a member on the committee. So nobody from Google and nobody from
>GitHub. I would extend that to Microsoft, too, given a certain
>impending acquisition. I'd
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (cc-ing Elijah Newren for the points about merging)
> [...]
> > Git doesn't provide a low-level command to rebase a branch onto
> > another without touching the index.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. There's been some recent work to
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 5:41 AM Ben Peart wrote:
> On 8/16/2018 2:37 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:27 PM Ben Peart wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Ben Peart
> >>
> >> Skip merging the commit, updating the index and working directory if and
> >> only if we are creating a new branch
(cc-ing Scott)
Hi Junio,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Muré writes:
>> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker that embeds in
>> git. It use git's internal storage to store bugs information in a way
>> that can be merged without conflict. You can push/pull to the normal
>> git
> There's been some recent work to make
> Git's merge code (also used for cherry-pick) less reliant on the index
> and worktree.
Yes please ! In the mean time, someone suggested another trick [0].
> Can you say more about the federation model it intends to support?
My goal is to have a workflow
Here was my reasoning for the naming choice:
- I need something meaningful
- I need something that encompass the idea and features of a bug
tracker because the narrower ideas and actions will be in sub commands
- other projects already used other words, in particular "issue"
- it kind of sounds
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 09:16:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] sideband: do not read beyond the end of input
>
> The caller of maybe_colorize_sideband() gives a counted buffer
> , but the callee checked src[] as if it were a NUL terminated
> buffer. If src[] had
(cc-ing Elijah Newren for the points about merging)
Hi again,
To avoid the other thread shadowing more important things:
Michael Muré wrote:
> Someone suggested in the Hacker News thread [0] to post it here as well.
Thanks to Ævar for that.
[...]
> git-bug use as identifier the hash of the
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> This commits introduces a optimization by avoiding calling the
> same functions again. For example, `git stash push -u`
> would call at some points the following functions:
>
> * `check_changes()`
> * `do_create_stash()`, which calls:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> I'm just pointing out in the more general case that if someone comes up
> with a badly named git-xyz it doesn't scale to try to point this out to
> them before git-xyz is widely deployed.
>
> So we must either let it go (solution #1), or come up with some
>
On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> The reason I can drop a "git-whatever" in my $PATH and invoke it as "git
>> whatever" is just a historical accident of how git was implemented.
>
> No. This is a very deliberate design decision, to allow people
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> This commit replaces spawning `git ls-files` child process with
> API calls to get the untracked files.
> ---
> builtin/stash--helper.c | 49 +++--
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> The reason I can drop a "git-whatever" in my $PATH and invoke it as "git
> whatever" is just a historical accident of how git was implemented.
No. This is a very deliberate design decision, to allow people to
prototype new Git commands (and to create the kind of
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> This commits replaces spawning `diff-index` child process by using
> the already existing `diff` API
I think this should be squashed into the previous commit. It's easier
to review a commit that replaces all the 'run_command'/'pipe_command'
calls in
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 7:41 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
> v5 fixes some minor comments from round 4 and a big mistake in 5/5.
> Junio's scary feeling turns out true. There is a missing invalidation
> in keep_entry() which is not added in 6/7. 7/7 makes sure that similar
I'm having trouble
On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Michael Muré wrote:
>
I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker
> [...]
>>> I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab. Not for trademark
>>>
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 7:41 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
...
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index 5ce40f39b3..41f313bc9e 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> @@ -2744,6 +2744,9 @@ int write_locked_index(struct index_state *istate,
> struct lock_file *lock,
>
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> Instead of spawning a child process, make use of `reset_tree()`
> function already implemented in `stash-helper.c`.
> ---
> builtin/stash--helper.c | 9 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:28 PM SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:49 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> > Since folks like to notice other problems with t7406 while reading my
> > patches, here's a challenge:
> >
> > Find something *else* wrong with t7406 that neither I nor any of
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Michael Muré wrote:
>>> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker
[...]
>> I am a bit unhappy about the namespace grab. Not for trademark
>> reasons: the Git trademark rules are pretty clear about this
On 08/18, Paul Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> > On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> + ret = -1;
> >> + goto done;
> >> + }
> >> +
Since 90e14525f2 (Add tests for the diff.ignoreSubmodules config
option, 2010-08-06) the test '.gitmodules ignore=dirty suppresses
submodules with untracked content' in 't7508-status.sh' contains a
check that is bogus for two reasons.
The commit in question added the following three lines at the
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> The old shell script `git-stash.sh` was removed and replaced
> entirely by `builtin/stash.c`. In order to do that, `create` and
> `push` were adapted to work without `stash.sh`. For example, before
> this commit, `git stash create` called `git
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> Add stash save to the helper and delete functions which are no
> longer needed (`show_help()`, `save_stash()`, `push_stash()`,
> `create_stash()`, `clear_stash()`, `untracked_files()` and
> `no_changes()`).
> ---
> builtin/stash--helper.c | 48 +++
Michael Muré writes:
> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker that embeds in
> git. It use git's internal storage to store bugs information in a way
> that can be merged without conflict. You can push/pull to the normal
> git remote you are already using to interact with other
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:54 AM Matthew DeVore wrote:
> diff --git a/list-objects-filter.c b/list-objects-filter.c
> index a0ba78b20..8e3caf5bf 100644
> --- a/list-objects-filter.c
> +++ b/list-objects-filter.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,55 @@ static void *filter_blobs_none__init(
> return d;
> }
>
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
- strbuf_add(dest, src, n);
+ if (0 < n)
+ strbuf_add(dest, src, n);
>>>
>>> This check seems unnecessary. strbuf_add can cope fine with !n.
>>
>> I was primarily interested in catching negatives, and !n was a mere
>>
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> This commit introduces more tests for the quiet option of
> `git stash push`.
I think this commit should be squashed into the previous one, so we
have implementation and tests in one commit. That way it's easier to
see during review that there are
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:45 AM Stefan Beller wrote:
> +static int module_update_module_mode(int argc, const char **argv, const char
> *prefix)
> +{
> + const char *path, *update = NULL;
> + int just_cloned;
> + struct submodule_update_strategy update_strategy = { .type =
>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:00 PM Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
wrote:
> + strbuf_init(>revision, 0);
> + if (!commit) {
> + if (!ref_exists(ref_stash)) {
> + free_stash_info(info);
> + fprintf_ln(stderr, "No stash entries found.");
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> And here are some tests to squash in.
Thanks, will do.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:35 AM Jonathan Tan wrote:
> @@ -179,6 +179,76 @@ static void prepare_pack_objects(struct child_process
> *cmd,
> cmd->out = -1;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Write oid to the given struct child_process's stdin, starting it first if
> + * necessary.
> + */
> +static int
Junio C Hamano writes:
>>> - strbuf_add(dest, src, n);
>>> + if (0 < n)
>>> + strbuf_add(dest, src, n);
>>
>> This check seems unnecessary. strbuf_add can cope fine with !n.
>
> I was primarily interested in catching negatives, and !n was a mere
> optimization, but you are correct
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Pratik Karki wrote:
> @@ -224,13 +219,56 @@ static int read_basic_state(struct rebase_options *opts)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int apply_autostash(struct rebase_options *opts)
> +{
> + const char *path = state_dir_path("autostash", opts);
> +
> Subject: stash: make push to be quiet
Nit: maybe "stash: make push -q quiet"? I think the subject should at
least mention the -q option.
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> There is a change in behaviour with this commit. When there was
> no initial commit, the shell version of stash
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:13 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
>> Add stash create to the helper.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
>> ---
>> builtin/stash--helper.c | 406
>> git-stash.sh| 2
On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
> Add stash push to the helper.
> ---
This (and the previous two and I think most subsequent patches) are
missing your sign-off.
> builtin/stash--helper.c | 209
> git-stash.sh| 6 +-
> 2 files
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 08/08, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu wrote:
>> Currently, `show_stash()` uses `cmd_diff()` to generate
>> the output. After this commit, the output will be generated
>> using the internal API.
>>
>> Before this commit, `git stash show
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:26:05PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > We also ship contrib/svn-fe, which builds on the vcs-svn
> > work. However, it does not seem to build out of the box for
> > me, as the link step misses some required libraries for
> > using libgit.a.
>
> What libraries do you
This makes sure that cache-tree is consistent with the index. The main
purpose is to catch potential problems by saving the index in
unpack_trees() but the line in write_index() would also help spot
missing invalidation in other code.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
---
cache-tree.c | 78
v5 fixes some minor comments from round 4 and a big mistake in 5/5.
Junio's scary feeling turns out true. There is a missing invalidation
in keep_entry() which is not added in 6/7. 7/7 makes sure that similar
problems will not slip through.
I had to rebase this series on top of 'master' because
We're going to optimize unpack_trees() a bit in the following
patches. Let's add some tracing to measure how long it takes before
and after. This is the baseline ("git checkout -" on webkit.git, 275k
files on worktree)
performance: 0.056651714 s: read cache .git/index
performance:
We do n-way merge by walking the source index and n trees at the same
time and add merge results to a new temporary index called o->result.
The merge result for any given path could be either
- keep_entry(): same old index entry in o->src_index is reused
- merged_entry(): either a new entry is
Performance measurements are listed right now as a flat list, which is
fine when we measure big blocks. But when we start adding more and
more measurements, some of them could be just part of a bigger
measurement and a flat list gives a wrong impression that they are
executed at the same level
This is a micro optimization that probably only shines on repos with
deep directory structure. Instead of allocating and freeing a new
cache_entry in every iteration, we reuse the last one and only update
the parts that are new each iteration.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Signed-off-by:
In order to merge one or many trees with the index, unpack-trees code
walks multiple trees in parallel with the index and performs n-way
merge. If we find out at start of a directory that all trees are the
same (by comparing OID) and cache-tree happens to be available for
that directory as well,
Any changes to the output index should be (confusingly) marked in the
source index with invalidate_ce_path(). This is used to make sure we
still have valid untracked cache and cache-tree extensions in the end.
We do a pretty good job of invalidating except in two places.
Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> --- a/sideband.c
>> +++ b/sideband.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static void maybe_colorize_sideband(struct strbuf *dest,
>> const char *src, int n)
>
> Not about this patch: should the 'n' parameter be a size_t instead of
> an int? It doesn't matter in practice (since the
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 1:34 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Christian Couder wrote:
> > FYI this has been requested from GitLab by Drupal (as well as others)
> > see
> > https://www.drupal.org/drupalorg/blog/developer-tools-initiative-part-5-gitlab-partnership
> >
On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Michael Muré wrote:
>
>> I released today git-bug, a distributed bug tracker that embeds in
>> git. It use git's internal storage to store bugs information in a way
>> that can be merged without conflict. You can push/pull to the normal
>>
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> '--quiet' doesn't make too much sense to use with 'git stash show', so
> I'm not sure whether or not it makes sense to support it at all. But
> we do promise to pass all options through to in our documentation, so
> the new behaviour is
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
>> Subject: stash: implement the "list" command in the builtin
>
> Nit: The previous commit messages all have the format "stash: convert
> to builtin", maybe follow the same pattern here?
At first, the subject of the commit matched the
On Sat, Aug 18 2018, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:44 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * cc/delta-islands (2018-08-16) 7 commits
>> - pack-objects: move 'layer' into 'struct packing_data'
>> - pack-objects: move tree_depth into 'struct packing_data'
>> - t5320: tests for
On Fri, Aug 17 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Usually, I refrain from merging larger topics in 'next' down to
> 'master' when we get close to -rc0, but I am wondering if it is
> better to merge all of them to 'master', even the ones on the larger
> and possibly undercooked side, expecting that
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:44 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * cc/delta-islands (2018-08-16) 7 commits
> - pack-objects: move 'layer' into 'struct packing_data'
> - pack-objects: move tree_depth into 'struct packing_data'
> - t5320: tests for delta islands
> - repack: add delta-islands support
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:31:17PM +0200, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> I just realized how often I type "git ci --amend". Looking back at my
> ~/.bash_history (only 10k lines) this is the second most often git
> command I type which may justify a short option for it (assuming that
> other people
Checkout with the -p switch uses the "add interactive" framework which
is written in Perl.
One test added in 8d7b558bae ("checkout & worktree: introduce
checkout.defaultRemote", 2018-06-05) didn't declare the PERL
prerequisite, breaking the test when built with NO_PERL.
Reported-by: CB Bailey
Hi,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Usually, I refrain from merging larger topics in 'next' down to
> 'master' when we get close to -rc0, but I am wondering if it is
> better to merge all of them to 'master', even the ones on the larger
> and possibly undercooked side, expecting that we collectively
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Subject: sideband: do not read beyond the end of input
>
> The caller of maybe_colorize_sideband() gives a counted buffer
> , but the callee checked *src as if it were a NUL terminated
> buffer. If src[] had all isspace() bytes in it, we would have made
> n negative, and
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:44 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * nd/unpack-trees-with-cache-tree (2018-08-13) 5 commits
> - unpack-trees: reuse (still valid) cache-tree from src_index
> - unpack-trees: reduce malloc in cache-tree walk
> - unpack-trees: optimize walking same trees with cache-tree
>
(-cc: my @google.com email)
Hi,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Subject: sideband: do not read beyond the end of input
>
> The caller of maybe_colorize_sideband() gives a counted buffer
> , but the callee checked *src as if it were a NUL terminated
> buffer. If src[] had all isspace() bytes in it, we
65 matches
Mail list logo
