Re: [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:22:41PM +0700, Gábor Szeder wrote: > On Aug 23, 2014 12:26 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash > > state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a > > stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external > > programs should never do this, because they would miss > > packed-refs. > > Not sure whether the prompt script is external program or not, but > doesn't matter, this is the right thing to do. Yeah, by external I just meant "nothing outside of refs.c should make this assumption". > > That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack > > refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the > > ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix > > that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King > > --- > > I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all, > > that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of > > this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe. > > I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly (don't have the means to > check it at the moment, sorry) in that commit I also added a 'git > pack-ref' invocation to the relevant test(s?) to guard us against > breakages due to changes in 'git pack-refs'. If that is so, then I > think those invocations should be removed as well, as they'll become > useless. It did add that change (that's actually how I noticed the problem! Thank you for being thorough in dd0b72c). My inclination is to leave the pack-refs invocations, as they protect against a certain class of errors (we are not doing the risky behavior now, but the purpose of the test suite is to detect regressions; the next person to touch that code may not be so careful as you were). I don't feel too strongly, though, so if we want them gone, I'm OK with that. -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
Re: [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2014 12:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash
> state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a
> stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external
> programs should never do this, because they would miss
> packed-refs.
Not sure whether the prompt script is external program or not, but doesn't
matter, this is the right thing to do.
> That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack
> refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the
> ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix
> that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King
> ---
> I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all,
> that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of
> this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe.
I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly (don't have the means to check it at
the moment, sorry) in that commit I also added a 'git pack-ref' invocation to
the relevant test(s?) to guard us against breakages due to changes in 'git
pack-refs'. If that is so, then I think those invocations should be removed as
well, as they'll become useless.
Best,
GáborN�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+ا���ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v���zZ+��+zf���h���~i���z� �w���?�&�)ߢf
[PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR
Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash
state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a
stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external
programs should never do this, because they would miss
packed-refs.
That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack
refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the
ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix
that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King
---
I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all,
that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of
this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe.
I think we could probably get by with:
[ -r "$g/logs/ref/stash" ]
since reflogs are always in the filesystem. However, that seems somewhat
short-sighted, as the work Ronnie is doing is moving in the direction of
more abstraction here. I hope a day will come soon when reflogs do not
have to be stored in $GIT_DIR/logs, and then we would end up updating
this code again.
contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh b/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh
index 9d684b1..c5473dc 100644
--- a/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh
@@ -468,7 +468,8 @@ __git_ps1 ()
fi
fi
if [ -n "${GIT_PS1_SHOWSTASHSTATE-}" ] &&
- [ -r "$g/refs/stash" ]; then
+ git rev-parse --verify --quiet refs/stash >/dev/null
+ then
s="$"
fi
--
2.1.0.346.ga0367b9
--
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
