On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The first step of an interactive rebase is to generate the so-called "todo
> script", to be stored in the state directory as "git-rebase-todo" and to
> be edited by the user.
>
> Originally, we adjusted the output of `git log <options>` using a simple
> sed script. Over the course of the years, the code became more
> complicated. We now use shell scripting to edit the output of `git log`
> conditionally, depending whether to keep "empty" commits (i.e. commits
> that do not change any files).
>
> On platforms where shell scripting is not native, this can be a serious
> drag. And it opens the door for incompatibilities between platforms when
> it comes to shell scripting or to Unix-y commands.
>
> Let's just re-implement the todo script generation in plain C, using the
> revision machinery directly.
>
> This is substantially faster, improving the speed relative to the
> shell script version of the interactive rebase from 2x to 3x on Windows.
Thanks for working on this
> +int sequencer_make_script(int keep_empty, FILE *out,
> + int argc, const char **argv)
> +{
> + init_revisions(&revs, NULL);
> + revs.verbose_header = 1;
> + revs.max_parents = 1;
> + revs.cherry_pick = 1;
> + revs.limited = 1;
> + revs.reverse = 1;
> + revs.right_only = 1;
> + revs.sort_order = REV_SORT_IN_GRAPH_ORDER;
> + revs.topo_order = 1;
> +
> + revs.pretty_given = 1;
> + git_config_get_string("rebase.instructionFormat", &format);
> + if (!format || !*format) {
> + free(format);
> + format = xstrdup("%s");
> + }
https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
So this is the core part that you and Junio have differing opinions on.
> All of the above feels like inviting unnecessary future breakages by
> knowing too much about the implementation the current version of
> revision.c happens to use. A more careful implementation would be
> to allocate our own av[] and prepare "--reverse", "--left-right",
> "--cherry-pick", etc. to be parsed by setup_revisions() call we see
> below. The parsing is not an expensive part of the operation
> anyway, and that way we do not have to worry about one less thing.
Allow me go through each of the options which may help
us finding a consensus (at least it helps me having a more
informed opinion).
List of options used outside of revision.c, which in the ideal
world of Git are parsed in e.g. handle_revision_opt called
from setup_revisions:
.verbose_header
bisect.c: opt.verbose_header = 1;
builtin/commit.c: rev.verbose_header = 1;
builtin/log.c: rev->verbose_header = 1;
builtin/log.c: rev.verbose_header = 1;
builtin/log.c: rev.verbose_header = 1;
.max_parents
builtin/log.c: check_rev.max_parents = 1;
builtin/log.c: revs.max_parents = 1;
builtin/log.c: rev.max_parents = 1;
builtin/log.c: revs.max_parents = 1;
.cherry_pick
is clean!
.limited
ref-filter.c: revs.limited = 1;
.reverse
seems clean.
.right_only:
.sort_order:
is clean!
.topo_order:
builtin/fast-export.c: revs.topo_order = 1;
builtin/log.c: revs.topo_order = 1;
.pretty_given
builtin/log.c: if (!rev->show_notes_given && (!rev->pretty_given || w.notes))
builtin/log.c: if (rev->pretty_given && rev->commit_format == CMIT_FMT_RAW) {
There are two conflicting messages I get:
* only a few fields seem to be polluted (verbose_header,
max_parents), much fewer than I thought
* we do use these undocumented ways already,
but not at the scale that DScho is trying to here.
In the reply to the cover letter I outlined that we may have
a problem with integrating the repository struct when using
string arrays only.
Thanks,
Stefan
