Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Elijah Newren writes: >> >>> `git merge-recursive` does a three-way merge between user-specified trees >>> base, head, and remote. Since the user is allowed to specify head, we can >>> not necesarily assume that head == HEAD. >>> >>> We modify index_has_changes() to take an extra argument specifying the >>> tree to compare the index to. If NULL, it will compare to HEAD. We then >>> use this from merge-recursive to make sure we compare to the >>> user-specified head. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren >>> --- >>> >>> I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go; >>> I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot? >> >> I think I saw you tried to lift an assumption that we're always >> working on the_index in a separate patch recently. Should that >> logic apply also to this part of the codebase? IOW, shouldn't >> index_has_changes() take a pointer to istate (as opposed to a >> function that uses the implicit the_index that should be named as >> "cache_has_changes()" or something?) >> >> I tend to think this function as part of the larger read-cache.c >> family whose definitions are in cache.h and accompanied by macros >> that are protected by NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS so if we >> were to move it elsewhere, I'd keep the header part as-is and >> implementation to read-cache.c to keep it together with the family, >> but I do not see a huge issue with the current placement, either. > > That's good point; the goal to lift assumptions on the_index should > probably also apply here. I'll make the change. > (And it was actually Duy's patch that I was reviewing, but close > enough.) I'll take a look at moving it to read-cache.c as well. Making it not depend on the_index will require changes to make diff-lib.c not depend on the_index first, so this is going to have to wait for Duy's changes mentioned at https://public-inbox.org/git/CACsJy8Ba74iSPf4_zFxuV=_unjgl6z2qunovavi3qab-6ew...@mail.gmail.com/. I'll re-roll this series on top of Duy's when it comes out.
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: > >> `git merge-recursive` does a three-way merge between user-specified trees >> base, head, and remote. Since the user is allowed to specify head, we can >> not necesarily assume that head == HEAD. >> >> We modify index_has_changes() to take an extra argument specifying the >> tree to compare the index to. If NULL, it will compare to HEAD. We then >> use this from merge-recursive to make sure we compare to the >> user-specified head. >> >> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren >> --- >> >> I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go; >> I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot? > > I think I saw you tried to lift an assumption that we're always > working on the_index in a separate patch recently. Should that > logic apply also to this part of the codebase? IOW, shouldn't > index_has_changes() take a pointer to istate (as opposed to a > function that uses the implicit the_index that should be named as > "cache_has_changes()" or something?) > > I tend to think this function as part of the larger read-cache.c > family whose definitions are in cache.h and accompanied by macros > that are protected by NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS so if we > were to move it elsewhere, I'd keep the header part as-is and > implementation to read-cache.c to keep it together with the family, > but I do not see a huge issue with the current placement, either. That's good point; the goal to lift assumptions on the_index should probably also apply here. I'll make the change. (And it was actually Duy's patch that I was reviewing, but close enough.) I'll take a look at moving it to read-cache.c as well.
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
Elijah Newren writes:
> `git merge-recursive` does a three-way merge between user-specified trees
> base, head, and remote. Since the user is allowed to specify head, we can
> not necesarily assume that head == HEAD.
>
> We modify index_has_changes() to take an extra argument specifying the
> tree to compare the index to. If NULL, it will compare to HEAD. We then
> use this from merge-recursive to make sure we compare to the
> user-specified head.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren
> ---
>
> I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go;
> I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot?
I think I saw you tried to lift an assumption that we're always
working on the_index in a separate patch recently. Should that
logic apply also to this part of the codebase? IOW, shouldn't
index_has_changes() take a pointer to istate (as opposed to a
function that uses the implicit the_index that should be named as
"cache_has_changes()" or something?)
I tend to think this function as part of the larger read-cache.c
family whose definitions are in cache.h and accompanied by macros
that are protected by NO_THE_INDEX_COMPATIBILITY_MACROS so if we
were to move it elsewhere, I'd keep the header part as-is and
implementation to read-cache.c to keep it together with the family,
but I do not see a huge issue with the current placement, either.
> diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
> index 89a107a7f7..439b9d9f6e 100644
> --- a/cache.h
> +++ b/cache.h
> @@ -634,14 +634,6 @@ extern int discard_index(struct index_state *);
> extern void move_index_extensions(struct index_state *dst, struct
> index_state *src);
> extern int unmerged_index(const struct index_state *);
>
> -/**
> - * Returns 1 if the index differs from HEAD, 0 otherwise. When on an unborn
> - * branch, returns 1 if there are entries in the index, 0 otherwise. If an
> - * strbuf is provided, the space-separated list of files that differ will be
> - * appended to it.
> - */
> -extern int index_has_changes(struct strbuf *sb);
> -
> extern int verify_path(const char *path, unsigned mode);
> extern int strcmp_offset(const char *s1, const char *s2, size_t
> *first_change);
> extern int index_dir_exists(struct index_state *istate, const char *name,
> int namelen);
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index b3deb7b182..762aa087d0 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -3263,7 +3263,7 @@ int merge_trees(struct merge_options *o,
> if (oid_eq(>object.oid, >object.oid)) {
> struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> - if (!o->call_depth && index_has_changes()) {
> + if (!o->call_depth && index_has_changes(, head)) {
> err(o, _("Your local changes to the following files
> would be overwritten by merge:\n %s"),
> sb.buf);
> return -1;
> diff --git a/merge.c b/merge.c
> index 0783858739..965d287646 100644
> --- a/merge.c
> +++ b/merge.c
> @@ -14,19 +14,21 @@ static const char *merge_argument(struct commit *commit)
> return oid_to_hex(commit ? >object.oid :
> the_hash_algo->empty_tree);
> }
>
> -int index_has_changes(struct strbuf *sb)
> +int index_has_changes(struct strbuf *sb, struct tree *tree)
> {
> - struct object_id head;
> + struct object_id cmp;
> int i;
>
> - if (!get_oid_tree("HEAD", )) {
> + if (tree)
> + cmp = tree->object.oid;
> + if (tree || !get_oid_tree("HEAD", )) {
> struct diff_options opt;
>
> diff_setup();
> opt.flags.exit_with_status = 1;
> if (!sb)
> opt.flags.quick = 1;
> - do_diff_cache(, );
> + do_diff_cache(, );
> diffcore_std();
> for (i = 0; sb && i < diff_queued_diff.nr; i++) {
> if (i)
> diff --git a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh
> b/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh
> index 3876cfa4fa..1d43712c52 100755
> --- a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh
> +++ b/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ test_expect_success 'recursive, when merge branch matches
> merge base' '
> test_path_is_missing .git/MERGE_HEAD
> '
>
> -test_expect_failure 'merge-recursive, when index==head but head!=HEAD' '
> +test_expect_success 'merge-recursive, when index==head but head!=HEAD' '
> git reset --hard &&
> git checkout C^0 &&
>
> diff --git a/tree.h b/tree.h
> index e2a80be4ef..2e1d8ea720 100644
> --- a/tree.h
> +++ b/tree.h
> @@ -37,4 +37,12 @@ extern int read_tree_recursive(struct tree *tree,
> extern int read_tree(struct tree *tree, int stage, struct pathspec *pathspec,
>struct index_state *istate);
>
> +/**
> + * Returns 1 if the index differs from tree, 0 otherwise. If tree is NULL,
> + * compares to HEAD. If tree is NULL and on an unborn branch, returns 1 if
> + * there are entries in the
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
On 04/06/18 00:37, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 02:52:12PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: >> On 03/06/18 07:58, Elijah Newren wrote: >>> I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go; >>> I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot? >> >> Err, leave it where it is and '#include "tree.h"' ? :-D > > Or leave it where it is and use a forward structure declaration? Indeed, I had intended to mention that possibility as well. [Note: the "merge-recursive.h" header file references several 'struct tree *' parameters, but does not itself include a declaration/definition from any source. So, in all of the six files that #include it, it relies on a previous #include to provide such a declaration/definition. I haven't checked, but I think that it is usually provided by the "commit.h" header (even on the single occasion that "tree.h" was included!).] ATB, Ramsay Jones
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 02:52:12PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 03/06/18 07:58, Elijah Newren wrote: > > I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go; > > I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot? > > Err, leave it where it is and '#include "tree.h"' ? :-D Or leave it where it is and use a forward structure declaration? -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] merge-recursive: fix assumption that head tree being merged is HEAD
On 03/06/18 07:58, Elijah Newren wrote: > `git merge-recursive` does a three-way merge between user-specified trees > base, head, and remote. Since the user is allowed to specify head, we can > not necesarily assume that head == HEAD. > > We modify index_has_changes() to take an extra argument specifying the > tree to compare the index to. If NULL, it will compare to HEAD. We then > use this from merge-recursive to make sure we compare to the > user-specified head. > > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren > --- > > I'm really unsure where the index_has_changes() declaration should go; > I stuck it in tree.h, but is there a better spot? Err, leave it where it is and '#include "tree.h"' ? :-D ATB, Ramsay Jones
