Hi Junio,
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > structure (similar in spirit to --preserve-merges, but with a
> > substantially less-broken design).
> > ...
> > @@ -2785,6 +2787,335 @@ void append_signoff(struct strbuf *msgbuf, int
> > ignore_footer, unsigned flag)
> > strbuf_release(&sob);
> > }
> >
> > +struct labels_entry {
> > + struct hashmap_entry entry;
> > + char label[FLEX_ARRAY];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int labels_cmp(const void *fndata, const struct labels_entry *a,
> > + const struct labels_entry *b, const void *key)
> > +{
> > + return key ? strcmp(a->label, key) : strcmp(a->label, b->label);
> > +}
>
> label_oid() accesses state->labels hash using strihash() as the hash
> function, but the final comparison between the entries in the same
> hash buckets are done with case sensitivity. It is unclear to me if
> that is what was intended, and why.
Heh... you were almost there with your analysis. strihash() is needed for
case-insensitive comparisons, and labels are... ref names.
So the idea (which I implemented only partially) was to make the labels
case-insensitive based on `ignore_case`.
I think the best way forward will be to copy
merge-recursive.c:path_hash().
> > +struct string_entry {
> > + struct oidmap_entry entry;
> > + char string[FLEX_ARRAY];
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct label_state {
> > + struct oidmap commit2label;
> > + struct hashmap labels;
> > + struct strbuf buf;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const char *label_oid(struct object_id *oid, const char *label,
> > + struct label_state *state)
> > +{
> > + struct labels_entry *labels_entry;
> > + struct string_entry *string_entry;
> > + struct object_id dummy;
> > + size_t len;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + string_entry = oidmap_get(&state->commit2label, oid);
> > + if (string_entry)
> > + return string_entry->string;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For "uninteresting" commits, i.e. commits that are not to be
> > + * rebased, and which can therefore not be labeled, we use a unique
> > + * abbreviation of the commit name. This is slightly more complicated
> > + * than calling find_unique_abbrev() because we also need to make
> > + * sure that the abbreviation does not conflict with any other
> > + * label.
> > + *
> > + * We disallow "interesting" commits to be labeled by a string that
> > + * is a valid full-length hash, to ensure that we always can find an
> > + * abbreviation for any uninteresting commit's names that does not
> > + * clash with any other label.
> > + */
> > + if (!label) {
> > + char *p;
> > +
> > + strbuf_reset(&state->buf);
> > + strbuf_grow(&state->buf, GIT_SHA1_HEXSZ);
> > + label = p = state->buf.buf;
> > +
> > + find_unique_abbrev_r(p, oid->hash, default_abbrev);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We may need to extend the abbreviated hash so that there is
> > + * no conflicting label.
> > + */
> > + if (hashmap_get_from_hash(&state->labels, strihash(p), p)) {
> > + size_t i = strlen(p) + 1;
> > +
> > + oid_to_hex_r(p, oid);
> > + for (; i < GIT_SHA1_HEXSZ; i++) {
> > + char save = p[i];
> > + p[i] = '\0';
> > + if (!hashmap_get_from_hash(&state->labels,
> > + strihash(p), p))
> > + break;
> > + p[i] = save;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> If oid->hash required full 40-hex to disambiguate, then
> find-unique-abbrev would give 40-hex and we'd want the same "-<num>"
> suffix technique employed below to make it consistently unique. I
> wonder if organizing the function this way ...
>
> if (!label)
> label = oid-to-hex(oid);
>
> if (label already exists or full oid) {
> make it unambiguous;
> }
It was hard to miss, I agree. The first arm of the if() is not trying to
make a label unambiguous by adding `-<num>`, but by extending the
abbreviated 40-hex until it is unique. (And we guarantee that there is a
solution, as we do not allow valid 40-hex strings to be used as label.)
The reason: if no `label` is provided, we want a valid raw (possibly
abbreviated) commit name. If `label` is provided, we want a valid ref name
(possibly made unique by appending `-<num>`).
Different beasts. Cannot be put into the same if() arm.
> A related tangent. Does an auto-label given to "uninteresting"
> commit need to be visible to end users?
Yes. The reason for this is the `merge`/`reset` commands when *not*
rebasing cousins. Because in that case, we have to refer to commits that
we could not possibly have `label`ed, because they were never the current
revision. Therefore we cannot assign <name>-<num> labels, but have to use
the abbreviated commit hash.
> > +static int make_script_with_merges(struct pretty_print_context *pp,
> > + struct rev_info *revs, FILE *out,
> > + unsigned flags)
> > +{
> > + ...
> > + int abbr = flags & TODO_LIST_ABBREVIATE_CMDS;
> > + const char *p = abbr ? "p" : "pick", *l = abbr ? "l" : "label",
> > + *t = abbr ? "t" : "reset", *b = abbr ? "b" : "bud",
> > + *m = abbr ? "m" : "merge";
>
> It would be easier to understand if these short named variables are
> reserved only for temporary use, not as constants. It is not too
> much to spell
>
> fprintf(out, "%s onto\n", cmd_label);
>
> than
>
> fprintf(out, "%s onto\n", l);
>
> and would save readers from head-scratching, wondering where the
> last assignment to variable "l" is.
Sure.
> > + oidmap_init(&commit2todo, 0);
> > + oidmap_init(&state.commit2label, 0);
> > + hashmap_init(&state.labels, (hashmap_cmp_fn) labels_cmp, NULL, 0);
> > + strbuf_init(&state.buf, 32);
> > +
> > + if (revs->cmdline.nr && (revs->cmdline.rev[0].flags & BOTTOM)) {
> > + struct object_id *oid = &revs->cmdline.rev[0].item->oid;
> > + FLEX_ALLOC_STR(entry, string, "onto");
> > + oidcpy(&entry->entry.oid, oid);
> > + oidmap_put(&state.commit2label, entry);
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * First phase:
> > + * - get onelines for all commits
> > + * - gather all branch tips (i.e. 2nd or later parents of merges)
> > + * - label all branch tips
> > + */
>
> When an early part of a branch is merged and then the remaining part
> of the same branch is merged again, "branch tip" and "2nd or later
> parents of merges" would become different concepts. The 2nd parent
> of an early merge is not among the branch tips.
>
> For the purpose of the "recreate the topology" algorithm, I am
> imagining that you would need not just the tips but all the 2nd and
> subsequent parents of merges, and my quick skimming tells me that
> the following code grabs them correctly.
Yes. I have used an earlier iteration of this patch series to create the
merging-rebase of Git for Windows v2.16.0 and that has a couple of really
good corner cases to exercise this code.
Ciao,
Dscho
