Re: My Itchlist
Dear diary, on Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 04:39:01AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] told me that... On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: - teach git-apply reverse and possibly fuzz. I think this might help Porcelain; currently they have to interpret git extended diff headers themselves. Reverse would definitely be useful. fuzz is really pretty dangerous. I think that once a a patch doesn't apply, you really want to have helper tools like a graphical wiggle etc, and that really means that it's not git-apply, it's something totally different. I don't know, but I come across fuzzy patches quite frequently and any problems have been always _extremely_ rare. And in any case, I can (and do) verify it right away by doing cg-diff and checking what changes did the patch really do. And quite frankly, if you have a tool that can handle unified diffs already, then extending it for the git rename stuff should be pretty easy. It's not like we haven't wanted renaming patches for at least a _decade_ already, it's just that nobody ever did them. That reminds me I should finally add support for renames to cg-patch... -- Petr Pasky Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: My Itchlist
Hi, On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: - Teach fetch-pack reference renaming. Well, the fetch side at least needs it less. Right now the renaming means that you can only really fetch _one_ head at a time, but that's at least a fairly common and important case, and you can do the rest from there. And doing only one means that git-fetch-pack can just return the result SHA1 of the head it was asked to fetch. In fact, even that could just be extended to returning multiple heads: just return each SHA1 in order. No renaming necessary, since it's then up to the user what to do with the results. I think that we need a method to do a push in reverse: If a central repository has several branches, I might want to pull just those branches where the local head is a strict parent of the remote side, and get complains for the others. And maybe reference naming comes as a freebie with that. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: My Itchlist
Johannes Schindelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that we need a method to do a push in reverse: If a central repository has several branches, I might want to pull just those branches where the local head is a strict parent of the remote side, and get complains for the others. And maybe reference naming comes as a freebie with that. I can first run git ls-remote to discover what are available heads and tags, and choose to git fetch without actually merging nor touching my references if I did not want to. I could then attempt to git resolve offline, and if it results in a real merge, not fast forward, and if I am in a hurry and do not want to risk merging without thinking, I can just keep my head and defer the merging part. I think that is what you are getting at by pull only when local is a strict parent of the remote. It is really the matter of where the ancestry computation happens. You seem to think you would want to do it on the central server side, but I tend to think that should be done on the puller's side, like I outlined above. There are two reasons: (1) as you mentioned in a separate topic, the current upload-pack/fetch-pack protocol pair seems to put a nontrivial burden on the server side. I'd prefer to have the client side do more work. (2) You are interested in that remote branch, so while you may not want to merge the upstream changes into the branch you have your local modifications right away, it is likely you eventually will. Fetching the objects would not be a wasted traffic. What Linus said makes a lot of sense to me. While the current git fetch user interface captures a commonly used pattern of fetching a single remote reference and optionally storing that remote reference as a local reference under refs/heads, it is cumbersome to use when you want to slurp objects needed for multiple remote references and not store the references themselves anywhere. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: My Itchlist
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: - Teach fetch-pack reference renaming. Well, the fetch side at least needs it less. Right now the renaming means that you can only really fetch _one_ head at a time, but that's at least a fairly common and important case, and you can do the rest from there. And doing only one means that git-fetch-pack can just return the result SHA1 of the head it was asked to fetch. In fact, even that could just be extended to returning multiple heads: just return each SHA1 in order. No renaming necessary, since it's then up to the user what to do with the results. In fact, many users don't even want to write the result to a ref _at_all_: they just use the raw name - no refs - to merge. So arguably it is _wrong_ to make git-fetch-pack write refs, because that just leads to the problem with temporary refs etc. Local variables are good. These are not 1.0 showstopper items but what I personally would love to see. - teach mailsplit/mailinfo basic MIME (attachments and quoted-printable) Some people send patches in MIME quoted-printable. I could drop them on the floor and ask the sender to resend, but I've been being a nice guy, which currently involves manual intervention. This really is a nasty problem. People add their own commentary etc, and the fact is, the maintainer _needs_ to edit it. Otherwise you'll have people saying Hi there, I really like this thing, but I have this problem which this patch fixes etc, which is all very nice, but dammit, that's simply not changelog material. Also, I definitely myself end up editing patches occasionally: fixing things up. Again, this is simply a major pain if the patch comes in as an attachment. So there are tons of reasons to just try to teach people that attachments are painful. Much better to teach people not to use them than having people use them and the tools working with them. - teach git-apply reverse and possibly fuzz. I think this might help Porcelain; currently they have to interpret git extended diff headers themselves. Reverse would definitely be useful. fuzz is really pretty dangerous. I think that once a a patch doesn't apply, you really want to have helper tools like a graphical wiggle etc, and that really means that it's not git-apply, it's something totally different. And quite frankly, if you have a tool that can handle unified diffs already, then extending it for the git rename stuff should be pretty easy. It's not like we haven't wanted renaming patches for at least a _decade_ already, it's just that nobody ever did them. So I'm hoping that git can act as a impetus for people to just finally have a standard way of saying rename. EVERYBODY wants it. Anybody who ever sees a rename as a patch will always go damn, it would be nice to have renames. And dammit, we have them, so let's try to push out the concept. And if that means that we should use rename patches and let non-git users have some pain until they say ok, ok, it's a good idea, I'll do it. Uncle, uncle!, then maybe the world will be a better place. It's not like they can't see how git-apply does it already ;) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
