Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
Am 26.11.2013 01:04, schrieb Nick Townsend:
> My first git patch - so shout out if I’ve got the etiquette wrong! Or
> of course if I’ve missed something.
Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second
one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter),
though -- that makes commenting on them much easier.
Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet),
AFAICS.
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] submodule: add_submodule_odb() usability
>
> Although add_submodule_odb() is documented as being
> externally usable, it is declared static and also
> has incorrect documentation.
>
> This commit fixes those and makes no changes to
> existing code using them. All tests still pass.
Sign-off missing (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
> ---
> Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt | 4 ++--
> submodule.c | 2 +-
> submodule.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
> b/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
> index aa1c50f..cbee624 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
> @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ submodules object database. You can do this by a
> code-snippet like
> this:
>
> const char *path = "path/to/submodule"
> - if (!add_submodule_odb(path))
> + if (add_submodule_odb(path))
> die("Error submodule '%s' not populated.", path);
>
> -`add_submodule_odb()` will return an non-zero value on success. If you
> +`add_submodule_odb()` will return a zero value on success. If you
"return zero on success" instead?
> do not do this you will get an error for each ref that it does not point
> to a valid object.
>
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index 1905d75..1ea46be 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ void stage_updated_gitmodules(void)
> die(_("staging updated .gitmodules failed"));
> }
>
> -static int add_submodule_odb(const char *path)
> +int add_submodule_odb(const char *path)
> {
> struct strbuf objects_directory = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct alternate_object_database *alt_odb;
> diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
> index 7beec48..3e3cdca 100644
> --- a/submodule.h
> +++ b/submodule.h
> @@ -41,5 +41,6 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
> const char *remotes_nam
> struct string_list *needs_pushing);
> int push_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20], const char
> *remotes_name);
> void connect_work_tree_and_git_dir(const char *work_tree, const char
> *git_dir);
> +int add_submodule_odb(const char *path);
>
> #endif
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] archive: allow submodule recursion on git-archive
>
> When using git-archive to produce a dump of a
> repository, the existing code does not recurse
> into a submodule when it encounters it in the tree
> traversal. These changes add a command line flag
> that permits this.
>
> Note that the submodules must be updated in the
> repository, otherwise this cannot take place.
>
> The feature is disabled for remote repositories as
> the git_work_tree fails. This is a possible future
> enhancement.
Hmm, curious. Why does it fail? I guess that happens with bare
repositories, only, right? (Which are the most likely kind of remote
repos to encounter, of course.)
> Two additional fields are added to archiver_args:
> * recurse - a boolean indicator
> * treepath - the path part of the tree-ish
>eg. the 'www' in HEAD:www
>
> The latter is used within the archive writer to
> determin the correct path for the submodule .git
> file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Townsend
> ---
> Documentation/git-archive.txt | 9 +
> archive.c | 38 --
> archive.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-archive.txt b/Documentation/git-archive.txt
> index b97aaab..b4df735 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-archive.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-archive.txt
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> [verse]
> 'git archive' [--format=] [--list] [--prefix=/] []
> [-o | --output=] [--worktree-attributes]
> + [--recursive|--recurse-submodules]
I'd expect git archive --recurse to add subdirectories and their
contents, which it does right now, and --no-recurse to only archive the
specified objects, which is not implemented. IAW: I wouldn't normally
associate an option with that name with submodules. Would
--recurse-submodules alone suffice?
Side note: With only one of the options defined you could shorten them
on the command line to e.g. --rec; with both you'd need to type at least
--recursi or --recurse to disambiguate -- even though they ultimately do
the same.
> [--remote= [--ex
Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
Am 26.11.2013 16:17, schrieb René Scharfe: > Am 26.11.2013 01:04, schrieb Nick Townsend: >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-archive.txt b/Documentation/git-archive.txt >> index b97aaab..b4df735 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-archive.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-archive.txt >> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ SYNOPSIS >> [verse] >> 'git archive' [--format=] [--list] [--prefix=/] [] >>[-o | --output=] [--worktree-attributes] >> + [--recursive|--recurse-submodules] > > I'd expect git archive --recurse to add subdirectories and their > contents, which it does right now, and --no-recurse to only archive the > specified objects, which is not implemented. IAW: I wouldn't normally > associate an option with that name with submodules. Would > --recurse-submodules alone suffice? It should. All new code recursing into submodules should not use --recursive but always --recurse-submodules, as --recursive means different things for different commands (the only exception being "git submodule", as --recursive is obvious here, and "git clone" for backward compatibility reasons). But I really like what these patches are aiming at. -- 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] submodule recursion in git-archive
René Scharfe writes: > Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second > one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter), > though -- that makes commenting on them much easier. > > Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet), > AFAICS. OK, how about doing this then? Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 7055576..304b3c0 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -140,7 +140,12 @@ comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the +"inline". A patch series that consists of N commits is sent as N +separate e-mail messages, or a cover letter message (see below) with +N separate e-mail messages, each being a response to the cover +letter. + +If your log message (including your name on the Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that you send off a message in the correct encoding. >> The feature is disabled for remote repositories as >> the git_work_tree fails. This is a possible future >> enhancement. > > Hmm, curious. Why does it fail? I guess that happens with bare > repositories, only, right? (Which are the most likely kind of remote > repos to encounter, of course.) Yeah, I do not think of a reason why it should fail in a bare repository, either. "git archive" is about writing out the contents of an already recorded tree, so there shouldn't be a reason to even call get_git_work_tree() in the first place. Even if the code is run inside a repository with a working tree, when producing a tarball out of an ancient commit that had a submodule not at its current location, --recurse-submodules option should do the right thing, so asking for working tree location of that submodule to find its repository is wrong, I think. It may happen to find one if the archived revision is close enough to what is currently checked out, but that may not necessarily be the case. At that point when the code discovers an S_ISGITLINK entry, it should have both a pathname to the submodule relative to the toplevel and the commit object name bound to that submodule location. What it should do, when it does not find the repository at the given path (maybe because there is no working tree, or the sudmodule directory has moved over time) is roughly: - Read from .gitmodules at the top-level from the tree it is creating the tarball out of; - Find "submodule.$name.path" entry that records that path to the submodule; and then - Using that $name, find the stashed-away location of the submodule repository in $GIT_DIR/modules/$name. or something like that. This is a related tangent, but when used in a repository that people often use as their remote, the repository discovery may have to interact with the relative URL. People often ship .gitmodules with [submodule "bar"] URL = ../bar.git path = barDir for a top-level project "foo" that can be cloned thusly: git clone git://site.xz/foo.git and host bar.git to be clonable with git clone git://site.xz/bar.git barDir/ inside the working tree of the foo project. In such a case, when "archive --recurse-submodules" is running, it would find the repository for the "bar" submodule at "../bar.git", I would think. So this part needs a bit more thought, I am afraid. >> 'git archive' [--format=] [--list] [--prefix=/] [] >>[-o | --output=] [--worktree-attributes] >> + [--recursive|--recurse-submodules] > > I'd expect git archive --recurse to add subdirectories and their > contents, which it does right now, and --no-recurse to only archive the > specified objects, which is not implemented. IAW: I wouldn't normally > associate an option with that name with submodules. Would > --recurse-submodules alone suffice? Jens already commented on this, and I agree that --recursive should be dropped from this patch. -- 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] submodule recursion in git-archive
Am 26.11.2013 23:18, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > René Scharfe writes: > >> Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second >> one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter), >> though -- that makes commenting on them much easier. >> >> Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet), >> AFAICS. > > OK, how about doing this then? > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 ++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 7055576..304b3c0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -140,7 +140,12 @@ comment on the changes you are submitting. It is > important for > a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard > e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of > your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted > -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the > +"inline". A patch series that consists of N commits is sent as N > +separate e-mail messages, or a cover letter message (see below) with > +N separate e-mail messages, each being a response to the cover > +letter. > + > +If your log message (including your name on the > Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that > you send off a message in the correct encoding. OK, but the repetition of "cover letter" and "e-mail messages" irritates me slightly for some reason. What about the following? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: document how to handle multiple patches Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 11 +-- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 7055576..e6d46ed 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -139,8 +139,15 @@ People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of -your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the +your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted +"inline" in a separate message. + +Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail +thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, +send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message +(see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. + +If your log message (including your name on the Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that you send off a message in the correct encoding. -- 1.7.8 -- 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] submodule recursion in git-archive
On 26 Nov 2013, at 16:28, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 26.11.2013 23:18, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> René Scharfe writes: >> >>> Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second >>> one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter), >>> though -- that makes commenting on them much easier. >>> >>> Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet), >>> AFAICS. >> >> OK, how about doing this then? >> >> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 ++- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> index 7055576..304b3c0 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> @@ -140,7 +140,12 @@ comment on the changes you are submitting. It is >> important for >> a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard >> e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of >> your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted >> -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the >> +"inline". A patch series that consists of N commits is sent as N >> +separate e-mail messages, or a cover letter message (see below) with >> +N separate e-mail messages, each being a response to the cover >> +letter. >> + >> +If your log message (including your name on the >> Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that >> you send off a message in the correct encoding. > > OK, but the repetition of "cover letter" and "e-mail messages" > irritates me slightly for some reason. What about the following? > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: document how to handle multiple patches > > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe > --- > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 11 +-- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 7055576..e6d46ed 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -139,8 +139,15 @@ People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read > and > comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for > a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard > e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of > -your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted > -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the > +your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted > +"inline" in a separate message. > + > +Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail > +thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, > +send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message > +(see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. > + > +If your log message (including your name on the > Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that > you send off a message in the correct encoding. > > -- > 1.7.8 > > That seems clear to me. At any rate I’m going to rework this based on the collective input and will submit them again. Please check my other replies as there are some discussion points! Nick-- 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] submodule recursion in git-archive
On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:38, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like where this is going.
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:17:43PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>> Am 26.11.2013 01:04, schrieb Nick Townsend:
>>> + strbuf_addstr(&dotgit, work_tree);
>>> + strbuf_addch(&dotgit, '/');
>>> + if (args->treepath) {
>>> + strbuf_addstr(&dotgit, args->treepath);
>>> + strbuf_addch(&dotgit, '/');
>>> + }
>>> + strbuf_add(&dotgit,
>>> path_without_prefix,strlen(path_without_prefix)-1);
>>> + if (add_submodule_odb(dotgit.buf))
>>> + die("Can't add submodule: %s", dotgit.buf);
>>
>> Hmm, I wonder if we can traverse the tree and load all submodule object
>> databases before traversing it again to actually write file contents.
>> That would spare the user from getting half of an archive together with
>> that error message.
>
> I am not sure whether we should die here. What about submodules that
> have not been initialized and or cloned? I think that is a quite regular
> use case for example for libraries that not everyone needs or big media
> submodules which only the design team uses. How about skipping them (maybe
> issuing a warning) by returning 0 here and proceeding?
>
> Cheers Heiko
I agree that issuing a warning and continuing is best. If the submodule hasn’t
been setup
then we should respect that and keep the current behaviour (just archive the
directory entry).
There is some further debate to be had about the extent to which this should
work with
un-initialized submodules which I’ll discuss in other replies.
Thanks
Nick--
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] submodule recursion in git-archive
On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:18, Junio C Hamano wrote: > René Scharfe writes: > >> Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second >> one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter), >> though -- that makes commenting on them much easier. >> >> Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet), >> AFAICS. > > OK, how about doing this then? > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 ++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 7055576..304b3c0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -140,7 +140,12 @@ comment on the changes you are submitting. It is > important for > a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard > e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of > your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted > -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the > +"inline". A patch series that consists of N commits is sent as N > +separate e-mail messages, or a cover letter message (see below) with > +N separate e-mail messages, each being a response to the cover > +letter. > + > +If your log message (including your name on the > Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that > you send off a message in the correct encoding. > > >>> The feature is disabled for remote repositories as >>> the git_work_tree fails. This is a possible future >>> enhancement. >> >> Hmm, curious. Why does it fail? I guess that happens with bare >> repositories, only, right? (Which are the most likely kind of remote >> repos to encounter, of course.) > > Yeah, I do not think of a reason why it should fail in a bare > repository, either. "git archive" is about writing out the contents > of an already recorded tree, so there shouldn't be a reason to even > call get_git_work_tree() in the first place. > See below for a discussion of why I use the .git file in the work tree to load the objects for the submodule. I also thought it should work in a remote repository - but I ran it on a properly initialized remote repository and it failed. Since I didn’t need it for my immediate use-case I just decided to disable it with an error. I can look into this further, but we must decide about the question below first… > Even if the code is run inside a repository with a working tree, > when producing a tarball out of an ancient commit that had a > submodule not at its current location, --recurse-submodules option > should do the right thing, so asking for working tree location of > that submodule to find its repository is wrong, I think. It may > happen to find one if the archived revision is close enough to what > is currently checked out, but that may not necessarily be the case. > > At that point when the code discovers an S_ISGITLINK entry, it > should have both a pathname to the submodule relative to the > toplevel and the commit object name bound to that submodule > location. What it should do, when it does not find the repository > at the given path (maybe because there is no working tree, or the > sudmodule directory has moved over time) is roughly: > > - Read from .gitmodules at the top-level from the tree it is > creating the tarball out of; > > - Find "submodule.$name.path" entry that records that path to the > submodule; and then > > - Using that $name, find the stashed-away location of the submodule > repository in $GIT_DIR/modules/$name. > > or something like that. > > This is a related tangent, but when used in a repository that people > often use as their remote, the repository discovery may have to > interact with the relative URL. People often ship .gitmodules with > > [submodule "bar"] > URL = ../bar.git > path = barDir > > for a top-level project "foo" that can be cloned thusly: > > git clone git://site.xz/foo.git > > and host bar.git to be clonable with > > git clone git://site.xz/bar.git barDir/ > > inside the working tree of the foo project. In such a case, when > "archive --recurse-submodules" is running, it would find the > repository for the "bar" submodule at "../bar.git", I would think. > > So this part needs a bit more thought, I am afraid. I see that there is a lot of potential complexity around setting up a submodule: * The .gitmodules file can be dirty (easy to flag, but should we allow archive to proceed?) * Users can mess with settings both prior to git submodule init and before git submodule update. * What if it’s a raw clone and the user manually changes things between init and update? * I’m not a git-internals expert but looking through the code I see that you can add additional object directories and change paths as you show above. For those reasons I deliberately decided not to reproduce the above logic all by myself. On the other hand
Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
On 26 Nov 2013, at 07:17, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 26.11.2013 01:04, schrieb Nick Townsend:
>> My first git patch - so shout out if I’ve got the etiquette wrong! Or
>> of course if I’ve missed something.
>
> Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second
> one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter),
> though -- that makes commenting on them much easier.
>
> Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet),
> AFAICS.
>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] submodule: add_submodule_odb() usability
>>
>> Although add_submodule_odb() is documented as being
>> externally usable, it is declared static and also
>> has incorrect documentation.
>>
>> This commit fixes those and makes no changes to
>> existing code using them. All tests still pass.
>
> Sign-off missing (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches).
>
>> ---
>> Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt | 4 ++--
>> submodule.c | 2 +-
>> submodule.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
>> b/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
>> index aa1c50f..cbee624 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/technical/api-ref-iteration.txt
>> @@ -50,10 +50,10 @@ submodules object database. You can do this by a
>> code-snippet like
>> this:
>>
>> const char *path = "path/to/submodule"
>> -if (!add_submodule_odb(path))
>> +if (add_submodule_odb(path))
>> die("Error submodule '%s' not populated.", path);
>>
>> -`add_submodule_odb()` will return an non-zero value on success. If you
>> +`add_submodule_odb()` will return a zero value on success. If you
>
> "return zero on success" instead?
I like the brevity of your suggestion. Again, I just used what was there…
>
>> do not do this you will get an error for each ref that it does not point
>> to a valid object.
>>
>> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
>> index 1905d75..1ea46be 100644
>> --- a/submodule.c
>> +++ b/submodule.c
>> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ void stage_updated_gitmodules(void)
>> die(_("staging updated .gitmodules failed"));
>> }
>>
>> -static int add_submodule_odb(const char *path)
>> +int add_submodule_odb(const char *path)
>> {
>> struct strbuf objects_directory = STRBUF_INIT;
>> struct alternate_object_database *alt_odb;
>> diff --git a/submodule.h b/submodule.h
>> index 7beec48..3e3cdca 100644
>> --- a/submodule.h
>> +++ b/submodule.h
>> @@ -41,5 +41,6 @@ int find_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20],
>> const char *remotes_nam
>> struct string_list *needs_pushing);
>> int push_unpushed_submodules(unsigned char new_sha1[20], const char
>> *remotes_name);
>> void connect_work_tree_and_git_dir(const char *work_tree, const char
>> *git_dir);
>> +int add_submodule_odb(const char *path);
>>
>> #endif
>
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] archive: allow submodule recursion on git-archive
>>
>> When using git-archive to produce a dump of a
>> repository, the existing code does not recurse
>> into a submodule when it encounters it in the tree
>> traversal. These changes add a command line flag
>> that permits this.
>>
>> Note that the submodules must be updated in the
>> repository, otherwise this cannot take place.
>>
>> The feature is disabled for remote repositories as
>> the git_work_tree fails. This is a possible future
>> enhancement.
>
> Hmm, curious. Why does it fail? I guess that happens with bare
> repositories, only, right? (Which are the most likely kind of remote
> repos to encounter, of course.)
I’m not sure why it failed - I didn’t think it should - but it did.
See discussion in other email.
>
>> Two additional fields are added to archiver_args:
>> * recurse - a boolean indicator
>> * treepath - the path part of the tree-ish
>> eg. the 'www' in HEAD:www
>>
>> The latter is used within the archive writer to
>> determin the correct path for the submodule .git
>> file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nick Townsend
>> ---
>> Documentation/git-archive.txt | 9 +
>> archive.c | 38 --
>> archive.h | 2 ++
>> 3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-archive.txt b/Documentation/git-archive.txt
>> index b97aaab..b4df735 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-archive.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-archive.txt
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
>> [verse]
>> 'git archive' [--format=] [--list] [--prefix=/] []
>>[-o | --output=] [--worktree-attributes]
>> + [--recursive|--recurse-submodules]
>
> I'd expect git archive --recurse to add subdirectories and their
> contents, which it does right now, and --no-recurse to only archive the
> specified objects, which is not implemented. IAW: I wouldn't normally
> associate an
Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
René Scharfe writes: > OK, but the repetition of "cover letter" and "e-mail messages" > irritates me slightly for some reason. What about the following? Looks good to me; will queue, thanks. > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: document how to handle multiple patches > > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe > --- > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 11 +-- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 7055576..e6d46ed 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -139,8 +139,15 @@ People on the Git mailing list need to be able to read > and > comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for > a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard > e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of > -your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted > -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the > +your code. For this reason, each patch should be submitted > +"inline" in a separate message. > + > +Multiple related patches should be grouped into their own e-mail > +thread to help readers find all parts of the series. To that end, > +send them as replies to either an additional "cover letter" message > +(see below), the first patch, or the respective preceding patch. > + > +If your log message (including your name on the > Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that > you send off a message in the correct encoding. -- 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] submodule recursion in git-archive
Nick Townsend writes:
> On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Even if the code is run inside a repository with a working tree,
>> when producing a tarball out of an ancient commit that had a
>> submodule not at its current location, --recurse-submodules option
>> should do the right thing, so asking for working tree location of
>> that submodule to find its repository is wrong, I think. It may
>> happen to find one if the archived revision is close enough to what
>> is currently checked out, but that may not necessarily be the case.
>>
>> At that point when the code discovers an S_ISGITLINK entry, it
>> should have both a pathname to the submodule relative to the
>> toplevel and the commit object name bound to that submodule
>> location. What it should do, when it does not find the repository
>> at the given path (maybe because there is no working tree, or the
>> sudmodule directory has moved over time) is roughly:
>>
>> - Read from .gitmodules at the top-level from the tree it is
>> creating the tarball out of;
>>
>> - Find "submodule.$name.path" entry that records that path to the
>> submodule; and then
>>
>> - Using that $name, find the stashed-away location of the submodule
>> repository in $GIT_DIR/modules/$name.
>>
>> or something like that.
>>
>> This is a related tangent, but when used in a repository that people
>> often use as their remote, the repository discovery may have to
>> interact with the relative URL. People often ship .gitmodules with
>>
>> [submodule "bar"]
>> URL = ../bar.git
>> path = barDir
>>
>> for a top-level project "foo" that can be cloned thusly:
>>
>> git clone git://site.xz/foo.git
>>
>> and host bar.git to be clonable with
>>
>> git clone git://site.xz/bar.git barDir/
>>
>> inside the working tree of the foo project. In such a case, when
>> "archive --recurse-submodules" is running, it would find the
>> repository for the "bar" submodule at "../bar.git", I would think.
>>
>> So this part needs a bit more thought, I am afraid.
>
> I see that there is a lot of potential complexity around setting up a
> submodule:
No question about it.
> * The .gitmodules file can be dirty (easy to flag, but should we
> allow archive to proceed?)
As we are discussing "archive", which takes a tree object from the
top-level project that is recorded in the object database, the
information _about_ the submodule in question should come from the
given tree being archived. There is no reason for the .gitmodules
file that happens to be sitting in the working tree of the top-level
project to be involved in the decision, so its dirtyness should not
matter, I think. If the tree being archived has a submodule whose
name is "kernel" at path "linux/" (relative to the top-level
project), its repository should be at .git/modules/kernel in the
layout recent git-submodule prepares, and we should find that
path-and-name mapping from .gitmodules recorded in that tree object
we are archiving. The version that happens to be checked out to the
working tree may have moved the submodule to a new path "linux-3.0/"
and "linux-3.0/.git" may have "gitdir: .git/modules/kernel" in it,
but when archiving a tree that has the submodule at "linux/", it
would not help---we would not know to look at "linux-3.0/.git" to
learn that information anyway because .gitmodules in the working
tree would say that the submodule at path "linux-3.0/" is with name
"kernel", and would not tell us anything about "linux/".
> * Users can mess with settings both prior to git submodule init
> and before git submodule update.
I think this is irrelevant for exactly the same reason as above.
What makes this tricker, however, is how to deal with an old-style
repository, where the submodule repositories are embedded in the
working tree that happens to be checked out. In that case, we may
have to read .gitmodules from two places, i.e.
(1) We are archiving a tree with a submodule at "linux/";
(2) We read .gitmodules from that tree and learn that the submodule
has name "kernel";
(3) There is no ".git/modules/kernel" because the repository uses
the old layout (if the user never was interested in this
submodule, .git/modules/kernel may also be missing, and we
should tell these two cases apart by checking .git/config to
see if a corresponding entry for the "kernel" submodule exists
there);
(4) In a repository that uses the old layout, there must be the
repository somewhere embedded in the current working tree (this
inability to remove is why we use the new layout these days).
We can learn where it is by looking at .gitmodules in the
working tree---map the name "kernel" we learned earlier, and
map it to the current path ("linux-3.0/" if you have been
following this example so far).
And in that fallback context, I would say that reading from a dirty
(or "messed with by the user") .gitmodules is the right
Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
On 27 Nov 2013, at 11:43, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nick Townsend writes:
>
>> On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:18, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Even if the code is run inside a repository with a working tree,
>>> when producing a tarball out of an ancient commit that had a
>>> submodule not at its current location, --recurse-submodules option
>>> should do the right thing, so asking for working tree location of
>>> that submodule to find its repository is wrong, I think. It may
>>> happen to find one if the archived revision is close enough to what
>>> is currently checked out, but that may not necessarily be the case.
>>>
>>> At that point when the code discovers an S_ISGITLINK entry, it
>>> should have both a pathname to the submodule relative to the
>>> toplevel and the commit object name bound to that submodule
>>> location. What it should do, when it does not find the repository
>>> at the given path (maybe because there is no working tree, or the
>>> sudmodule directory has moved over time) is roughly:
>>>
>>> - Read from .gitmodules at the top-level from the tree it is
>>> creating the tarball out of;
>>>
>>> - Find "submodule.$name.path" entry that records that path to the
>>> submodule; and then
>>>
>>> - Using that $name, find the stashed-away location of the submodule
>>> repository in $GIT_DIR/modules/$name.
>>>
>>> or something like that.
>>>
>>> This is a related tangent, but when used in a repository that people
>>> often use as their remote, the repository discovery may have to
>>> interact with the relative URL. People often ship .gitmodules with
>>>
>>> [submodule "bar"]
>>> URL = ../bar.git
>>> path = barDir
>>>
>>> for a top-level project "foo" that can be cloned thusly:
>>>
>>> git clone git://site.xz/foo.git
>>>
>>> and host bar.git to be clonable with
>>>
>>> git clone git://site.xz/bar.git barDir/
>>>
>>> inside the working tree of the foo project. In such a case, when
>>> "archive --recurse-submodules" is running, it would find the
>>> repository for the "bar" submodule at "../bar.git", I would think.
>>>
>>> So this part needs a bit more thought, I am afraid.
>>
>> I see that there is a lot of potential complexity around setting up a
>> submodule:
>
> No question about it.
>
>> * The .gitmodules file can be dirty (easy to flag, but should we
>> allow archive to proceed?)
>
> As we are discussing "archive", which takes a tree object from the
> top-level project that is recorded in the object database, the
> information _about_ the submodule in question should come from the
> given tree being archived. There is no reason for the .gitmodules
> file that happens to be sitting in the working tree of the top-level
> project to be involved in the decision, so its dirtyness should not
> matter, I think. If the tree being archived has a submodule whose
> name is "kernel" at path "linux/" (relative to the top-level
> project), its repository should be at .git/modules/kernel in the
> layout recent git-submodule prepares, and we should find that
> path-and-name mapping from .gitmodules recorded in that tree object
> we are archiving. The version that happens to be checked out to the
> working tree may have moved the submodule to a new path "linux-3.0/"
> and "linux-3.0/.git" may have "gitdir: .git/modules/kernel" in it,
> but when archiving a tree that has the submodule at "linux/", it
> would not help---we would not know to look at "linux-3.0/.git" to
> learn that information anyway because .gitmodules in the working
> tree would say that the submodule at path "linux-3.0/" is with name
> "kernel", and would not tell us anything about "linux/".
>
>> * Users can mess with settings both prior to git submodule init
>> and before git submodule update.
>
> I think this is irrelevant for exactly the same reason as above.
>
> What makes this tricker, however, is how to deal with an old-style
> repository, where the submodule repositories are embedded in the
> working tree that happens to be checked out. In that case, we may
> have to read .gitmodules from two places, i.e.
>
> (1) We are archiving a tree with a submodule at "linux/";
>
> (2) We read .gitmodules from that tree and learn that the submodule
> has name "kernel";
>
> (3) There is no ".git/modules/kernel" because the repository uses
> the old layout (if the user never was interested in this
> submodule, .git/modules/kernel may also be missing, and we
> should tell these two cases apart by checking .git/config to
> see if a corresponding entry for the "kernel" submodule exists
> there);
>
> (4) In a repository that uses the old layout, there must be the
> repository somewhere embedded in the current working tree (this
> inability to remove is why we use the new layout these days).
> We can learn where it is by looking at .gitmodules in the
> working tree---map the name "kernel" we learned earlier, and
> map it to the current path ("
Re: Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
Hi,
I like where this is going.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:17:43PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 26.11.2013 01:04, schrieb Nick Townsend:
> > + strbuf_addstr(&dotgit, work_tree);
> > + strbuf_addch(&dotgit, '/');
> > + if (args->treepath) {
> > + strbuf_addstr(&dotgit, args->treepath);
> > + strbuf_addch(&dotgit, '/');
> > + }
> > + strbuf_add(&dotgit,
> > path_without_prefix,strlen(path_without_prefix)-1);
> > + if (add_submodule_odb(dotgit.buf))
> > + die("Can't add submodule: %s", dotgit.buf);
>
> Hmm, I wonder if we can traverse the tree and load all submodule object
> databases before traversing it again to actually write file contents.
> That would spare the user from getting half of an archive together with
> that error message.
I am not sure whether we should die here. What about submodules that
have not been initialized and or cloned? I think that is a quite regular
use case for example for libraries that not everyone needs or big media
submodules which only the design team uses. How about skipping them (maybe
issuing a warning) by returning 0 here and proceeding?
Cheers Heiko
--
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: Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:43:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nick Townsend writes:
> > * The .gitmodules file can be dirty (easy to flag, but should we
> > allow archive to proceed?)
>
> As we are discussing "archive", which takes a tree object from the
> top-level project that is recorded in the object database, the
> information _about_ the submodule in question should come from the
> given tree being archived. There is no reason for the .gitmodules
> file that happens to be sitting in the working tree of the top-level
> project to be involved in the decision, so its dirtyness should not
> matter, I think. If the tree being archived has a submodule whose
> name is "kernel" at path "linux/" (relative to the top-level
> project), its repository should be at .git/modules/kernel in the
> layout recent git-submodule prepares, and we should find that
> path-and-name mapping from .gitmodules recorded in that tree object
> we are archiving. The version that happens to be checked out to the
> working tree may have moved the submodule to a new path "linux-3.0/"
> and "linux-3.0/.git" may have "gitdir: .git/modules/kernel" in it,
> but when archiving a tree that has the submodule at "linux/", it
> would not help---we would not know to look at "linux-3.0/.git" to
> learn that information anyway because .gitmodules in the working
> tree would say that the submodule at path "linux-3.0/" is with name
> "kernel", and would not tell us anything about "linux/".
>
> > * Users can mess with settings both prior to git submodule init
> > and before git submodule update.
>
> I think this is irrelevant for exactly the same reason as above.
>
> What makes this tricker, however, is how to deal with an old-style
> repository, where the submodule repositories are embedded in the
> working tree that happens to be checked out. In that case, we may
> have to read .gitmodules from two places, i.e.
>
> (1) We are archiving a tree with a submodule at "linux/";
>
> (2) We read .gitmodules from that tree and learn that the submodule
> has name "kernel";
>
> (3) There is no ".git/modules/kernel" because the repository uses
> the old layout (if the user never was interested in this
> submodule, .git/modules/kernel may also be missing, and we
> should tell these two cases apart by checking .git/config to
> see if a corresponding entry for the "kernel" submodule exists
> there);
>
> (4) In a repository that uses the old layout, there must be the
> repository somewhere embedded in the current working tree (this
> inability to remove is why we use the new layout these days).
> We can learn where it is by looking at .gitmodules in the
> working tree---map the name "kernel" we learned earlier, and
> map it to the current path ("linux-3.0/" if you have been
> following this example so far).
>
> And in that fallback context, I would say that reading from a dirty
> (or "messed with by the user") .gitmodules is the right thing to
> do. Perhaps the user may be in the process of moving the submodule
> in his working tree with
>
> $ mv linux-3.0 linux-3.2
> $ git config -f .gitmodules submodule.kernel.path linux-3.2
>
> but hasn't committed the change yet.
>
> > For those reasons I deliberately decided not to reproduce the
> > above logic all by myself.
>
> As I already hinted, I agree that the "how to find the location of
> submodule repository, given a particular tree in the top-level
> project the submodule belongs to and the path to the submodule in
> question" deserves a separate thread to discuss with area experts.
FYI, I already started to implement this lookup of submodule paths early
this year[1] but have not found the time to proceed on that yet. I am
planning to continue on that topic soonish. We need it to implement a
correct recursive fetch with clone on-demand as a basis for the future
recursive checkout.
During the work on this I hit too many open questions. Thats why I am
currently working on a complete plan[2] so we can discuss and define how
this needs to be implemented. It is an asciidoc document which I will
send out once I am finished with it.
Cheers Heiko
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/217020
[2] https://github.com/hvoigt/git/wiki/submodule-fetch-config
--
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: Re: [PATCH] submodule recursion in git-archive
Hi, On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:55:36PM -0800, Nick Townsend wrote: > > On 29 Nov 2013, at 14:38, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > FYI, I already started to implement this lookup of submodule paths early > > this year[1] but have not found the time to proceed on that yet. I am > > planning to continue on that topic soonish. We need it to implement a > > correct recursive fetch with clone on-demand as a basis for the future > > recursive checkout. > > > > During the work on this I hit too many open questions. Thats why I am > > currently working on a complete plan[2] so we can discuss and define how > > this needs to be implemented. It is an asciidoc document which I will > > send out once I am finished with it. > > > > Cheers Heiko > > > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/217020 > > [2] https://github.com/hvoigt/git/wiki/submodule-fetch-config > > It seems to me that the question that you are trying to solve is > more complex than the problem I faced in git-archive, where we have a > single commit of the top-level repository that we are chasing. > Perhaps we should split the work into two pieces: > > a. Identifying the complete submodule configuration for a single commit, and > b. the complexity of behaviour when fetching and cloning recursively (which > of course requires a.) You are right the latter (b) is a separate topic. So how about I extract the submodule config parsing part from the mentioned patch and you can then use that patch as a basis for your work? As far as I understand you only need to parse the .gitmodules file for one commit and then lookup the submodule names from paths right? That would simplify matters and we can postpone the caching of multiple commits for the time when I continue on b. > I’m very happy to work on the first, but the second seems to me to require > more > understanding than I currently possess. In order to do this it would help to > have a > place to discuss this. I see you have used the wiki of your fork of git on > GitHub. > Is that the right place to solicit input? I only used that to collect all information into one place. I am not sure if thats actually necessary for the .gitmodules parsing you need. I think we should discuss everything related to the design and patches here on the list. If you have questions regarding my code I am also happy to answer that via private mail. Cheers Heiko -- 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
