Re: [GSoC][PATCH v2 2/2] submodule: port submodule subcommand status

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Prathamesh Chavan wrote: > --- > In this new version of patch, function print_status is introduced. > > The functions for_each_submodule_list and get_submodule_displaypath > are found to be the same as those in the ported submodule subcommand >

[BUG?] gitlink without .gitmodules no longer fails recursive clone

While running some regression tests with v2.13, I noticed an odd behavior. If I create a repository where there's a gitlink with no matching .gitmodules entry: git init repo cd repo n10=1234abcdef n40=$n10$n10$n10$n10 git update-index --add --cacheinfo 16 $n40 foo git commit -m

Re: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

On 6/5/2017 9:22 PM, Jeff King wrote: There are existing scripts which implement this approach, like metastore: https://github.com/przemoc/metastore I haven't used it, but I think it's fairly mature, as it has been around since the early days of Git. -Peff I wasn't considering other

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

On 6 June 2017 at 11:52, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Samuel Lijin writes: > >> For what it's worth, I've never quite understood the "Initial commit" >> message, because the repository is in a state where there are no >> commits yet, not when HEAD is pointing to

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

Samuel Lijin writes: > For what it's worth, I've never quite understood the "Initial commit" > message, because the repository is in a state where there are no > commits yet, not when HEAD is pointing to a root commit. Ah, that is true. The message in the "status" output

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:11 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:00:12AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Stefan Beller writes: >> >> > On the subject: maybe we want to rename initial commit >> > to root commit? (evil-me also

Re: [PATCH] t3200: add test for single parameter passed to -m option

Sahil Dua writes: > Adds a test for the case when only one parameter is passed to '-m' > (move/rename) option. > > For example - if 'git branch -m bbb' is run, it should rename the > currently checked out branch to bbb. There was no test for this > particular case with

Re: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:27:45PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Hector Santos > wrote: > > I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" > > file timestamps? > > The git datamodel stores

Re: Git v2.13.1 SHA1 very broken

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > That looks scary, can you please comment out this: > > #define SHA1DC_ALLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > > In sha1dc/sha1.c and see if that helps, alternatively comment out the > ifdefs guarded by "#ifdef _MSC_VER" calls in sha1dc/sha1.c That is

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:00:12AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > > > On the subject: maybe we want to rename initial commit > > to root commit? (evil-me also thinks we could name it > > "parent-less commit", to reinforce what the lovely git man > >

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #03; Mon, 5)

Stefan Beller writes: >> "git diff" has been taught to optionally paint new lines that are >> the same as deleted lines elsewhere differently from genuinely new >> lines. >> >> Are we happy with these changes? > > I advertised this series e.g. for reviewing Brandons >

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

Stefan Beller writes: > On the subject: maybe we want to rename initial commit > to root commit? (evil-me also thinks we could name it > "parent-less commit", to reinforce what the lovely git man > page generator tries to point at.) Is "initial" harder to understand than

Re: [PATCH/RFC v4 3/3] branch: add copy branch feature implementation

Junio C Hamano writes: > When somebody says "I want to rename my current branch to X", it is > clear that the person wants to end up being on a branch called X. > > To me, "I want to copy my current branch to Y" sounds more like "I > want to create another Y that looks just

Re: Git v2.13.1 SHA1 very broken

On 06/06/17 00:20, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 05/06/17 22:05, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: >>> I'm trying to compile Git v2.13.1 to release for Cygwin, but it appears >>> a010391 ("sha1dc: update from upstream",

Re: [PATCH/RFC v4 3/3] branch: add copy branch feature implementation

Sahil Dua writes: > I want suggestions about one logical point raised by Evar. > > Let's consider a case that I'm on branch maint and then I do 'git > checkout master' followed by 'git branch -m feature', it will rename > master branch to feature. Now if I do 'git

Re: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

On 6/5/2017 6:06 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote: -Original Message- From: Hector Santos Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:14 PM I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" file

Re: Git p4 sync changelist interval

On 5 June 2017 at 19:50, Андрей Ефанов <1134t...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-06-04 14:09 GMT+03:00 Luke Diamand : >> >> On 4 June 2017 at 10:56, Андрей Ефанов <1134t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > My goal is to sync the repository from p4 using an interval of >> >

Re: [GSoC][PATCH v2 1/2] submodule: port set_name_rev from shell to C

On 06/06, Prathamesh Chavan wrote: > Since later on we want to port submodule subcommand status, and since > set_name_rev is part of cmd_status, hence this function is ported. It > has been ported to function print_name_rev in C, which calls get_name_rev > to get the revname, and after formatting

Re: Git v2.13.1 SHA1 very broken

On 05/06/17 22:05, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: >> I'm trying to compile Git v2.13.1 to release for Cygwin, but it appears >> a010391 ("sha1dc: update from upstream", 2017-05-20) is breaking a very >> significant

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:10 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:34:12PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I noticed a weird output by git when trying to run 'git status' on a >> newly initialized git repository. It prints the

Re: [GSoC][PATCH v2 2/2] submodule: port submodule subcommand status

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Prathamesh Chavan wrote: > This aims to make git-submodule subcommand status a builtin. Here > 'status' is ported to submodule--helper, and submodule--helper is > called from git-submodule.sh. > > For the purpose of porting cmd_status, the code

Re: What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 07:34:12PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > Hello all, > > I noticed a weird output by git when trying to run 'git status' on a > newly initialized git repository. It prints the following, > > > On branch master > > > > Initial commit > > > > nothing to commit

Re: [GSoC][PATCH v2 1/2] submodule: port set_name_rev from shell to C

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Prathamesh Chavan wrote: > Since later on we want to port submodule subcommand status, and since > set_name_rev is part of cmd_status, hence this function is ported. It > has been ported to function print_name_rev in C, which calls get_name_rev >

[PATCH] t3200: add test for single parameter passed to -m option

Adds a test for the case when only one parameter is passed to '-m' (move/rename) option. For example - if 'git branch -m bbb' is run, it should rename the currently checked out branch to bbb. There was no test for this particular case with only one parameter for -m option. However, there's one

Re: [GSoC] Update: Week 3

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Prathamesh Chavan wrote: > 1. foreach: After a discussion over the issue of the path variable in >windows, in this week my mentor, Stefan Beller came up with the >appropriate solution for the problem after discussing it with Ramsay >

Re: [PATCH] submodule foreach: correct $sm_path in nested submodules from a dir

Hi, This patch seems to aim to do multiple things. Initial thoughts: Stefan Beller wrote: [...] > To ameliorate the situation, perform these changes > * Document 'sm_path' instead of 'path'. > As using a variable '$path' may be harmful to users due to > capitalization issues, see

Re: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Hector Santos >> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:14 PM >> >> I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" > file timestamps? > > That is not in the tree data

RE: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

> -Original Message- > From: Hector Santos > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:14 PM > > I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" file timestamps? That is not in the tree data structure, see below. root@blackfat /projects/tipsoftheday $ git cat-file -p head

Re: Git "Keeping Original Dates"

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" > file timestamps? The git datamodel stores files as a list of names and whether or not they have the executable bit. If you need to

Git "Keeping Original Dates"

I'm implementing GIT. If there an option or compile/version that "keep" file timestamps? -- Hector, Engineering & Technical Support Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com (sales) http://www.winserver.com (support) http://www.winserver.com/AupInfo (Online AUP Help) Office:

Re: Git v2.13.1 SHA1 very broken

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > I'm trying to compile Git v2.13.1 to release for Cygwin, but it appears > a010391 ("sha1dc: update from upstream", 2017-05-20) is breaking a very > significant number of test cases in both 32-bit and 64-bit Cygwin >

[GSoC] Update: Week 3

SUMMARY OF MY PROJECT: Git submodule subcommands are currently implemented by using shell script 'git-submodule.sh'. There are several reasons why we'll prefer not to use the shell script. My project intends to convert the subcommands into C code, thus making them builtins. This will increase

Re: [PATCH/RFC v4 3/3] branch: add copy branch feature implementation

I want suggestions about one logical point raised by Evar. Let's consider a case that I'm on branch maint and then I do 'git checkout master' followed by 'git branch -m feature', it will rename master branch to feature. Now if I do 'git checkout -' to go to the last branch, it will take me to

[PATCH/RFC v4 2/3] config: abstract out create section from key logic

Abstracts out the logic for creating string buffer from given key for example - 'branch.b' and returns '[branch "b"]'. We want to keep the original config section intact in case of copy operation. For this we need to fetch the section with updated new branch name so that we can write that to the

[PATCH/RFC v4 3/3] branch: add copy branch feature implementation

Adds copy branch option available using -c or -C (forcefully). Adds new function copy_existing_ref to copy the ref and git_config_copy_section to copy the git config section. Under the hood, both git_config_copy_section and git_config_rename_section functions use the same function which takes a

[PATCH/RFC v4 1/3] branch: add tests for new copy branch feature

Adds a few basic tests for the new copy branch option. Aim is to have an option -c for copying a branch just like -m option for renaming a branch. My definition of "copy" for this feature is "copying from A to create B, keeping A intact". That means "copy branch A to B" should do whatever "move

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: add ability to cap the runtime of tests

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: >> That's never going to be a problem on a less beefy machine with >> --state=slow,save, since the 30s test is going to be long over by the >> time the rest of the tests run. >> >> Cutting down on these long tail tests

Git v2.13.1 SHA1 very broken

I'm trying to compile Git v2.13.1 to release for Cygwin, but it appears a010391 ("sha1dc: update from upstream", 2017-05-20) is breaking a very significant number of test cases in both 32-bit and 64-bit Cygwin builds. The first failure is t.46 "validate object ID of a known tree"; output with

[GSoC][PATCH v2 1/2] submodule: port set_name_rev from shell to C

Since later on we want to port submodule subcommand status, and since set_name_rev is part of cmd_status, hence this function is ported. It has been ported to function print_name_rev in C, which calls get_name_rev to get the revname, and after formatting it, print_name_rev prints it. And hence in

[GSoC][PATCH v2 2/2] submodule: port submodule subcommand status

This aims to make git-submodule subcommand status a builtin. Here 'status' is ported to submodule--helper, and submodule--helper is called from git-submodule.sh. For the purpose of porting cmd_status, the code is split up such that one function obtains all the list of submodules, acting as the

Re: [PATCH 00/33] object id conversion (grep and diff)

On 06/03, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > > > On 06/02, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > >> I lied. This also conflicts somewhat with Peff's diff-blob topic. > >> I think I resolved them correctly (there needs evil merges applied > >> to two files when merging

[PATCH] t5313: make extended-table test more deterministic

Commit a1283866b (t5313: test bounds-checks of corrupted/malicious pack/idx files, 2016-02-25) added a test that requires our corrupted pack index to have two objects. The entry for the first one remains untouched, but we corrupt the entry for second one. Since the index stores the entries in

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: add ability to cap the runtime of tests

> That's never going to be a problem on a less beefy machine with > --state=slow,save, since the 30s test is going to be long over by the > time the rest of the tests run. > > Cutting down on these long tail tests allows me to e.g. replace this: > > git rebase -i --exec '(make -j56 all && cd t

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: add ability to cap the runtime of tests

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Christian Couder wrote: >> when the hidden feature is _not_ used, so that wider set of people >> will be forced to see that some tests take inordinate amount of >> time, and entice at least some of them to look into it. > > I wonder if

Re: t5313-pack-bounds-checks.sh flaky?

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 12:33:44PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > Hi Peff, > > t5313.7 failed recently on master [1]. Are you aware of any flaky parts > in this test? No, I've never seen it fail. I poked at it some in response to your message and couldn't convince it fail under load. We corrupt

Fwd: Git p4 sync changelist interval

2017-06-04 14:09 GMT+03:00 Luke Diamand : > > On 4 June 2017 at 10:56, Андрей Ефанов <1134t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > My goal is to sync the repository from p4 using an interval of > > changelists so that the first changelist version of the repository > > would be

Re: [PATCH 04/31] setup: don't perform lazy initialization of repository state

On 06/05, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 10:43:52AM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > > In the case of setup_git_env(), I think it was less about doing work and > > > more that we didn't want to have to do explicit setup in each program. > > > But over the years we've moved away

Re: [PATCH] docs: suggest "Helped-by" rather than "Thanks-to"

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Adam Dinwoodie wrote: > The SubmittingPatches doc suggests adding "tags" in the style of > "Signed-off-by" to commit messages, and suggests some in common usage. > However, based on usage on the Git mailing list (and in particular, > Junio C

Re: [PATCH 06/31] repo: introduce the repository object

>> > + >> > + repo_set_gitdir(repo, resolved_gitdir); >> > + >> > + /* NEEDSWORK: Verify repository format version */ >> >> Care to elaborate on this? I do not understand why we would want >> to check the format version here? > > When opening up a repository git needs to check if it

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #03; Mon, 5)

> * sb/diff-color-move (2017-06-01) 17 commits > - diff.c: color moved lines differently > - diff: buffer all output if asked to > - diff.c: emit_line includes whitespace highlighting > - diff.c: convert diff_summary to use emit_line_* > - diff.c: convert diff_flush to use emit_line_* > -

Re: [PATCH 04/31] setup: don't perform lazy initialization of repository state

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 10:43:52AM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > In the case of setup_git_env(), I think it was less about doing work and > > more that we didn't want to have to do explicit setup in each program. > > But over the years we've moved away from that, and in fact if you hit > >

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: add ability to cap the runtime of tests

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> On 04 Jun 2017, at 09:29, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:

Re: [PATCH 06/31] repo: introduce the repository object

On 06/01, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > Introduce the repository object 'struct repo' which can be used hold all > > state pertaining to a git repository. > > > > The aim of object-ifying the repository is to (1) make the

Re: [PATCH 31/31] ls-files: use repository object

On 06/01, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > Convert ls-files to use a repository struct and recurse submodules > > inprocess. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams > > > > +static void

Re: [PATCH 04/31] setup: don't perform lazy initialization of repository state

On 06/02, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:23:25PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > > > Under some circumstances (bogus GIT_DIR value or the discovered gitdir > > > is '.git') 'setup_git_directory()'

Re: [WIP v2 0/2] Modifying pack objects to support --blob-max-bytes

Thanks for your comments. On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:16:45 -0400 Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > > Do we need to future-proof the output format so that we can later > > > use 32-byte hash? The input to pack-objects (i.e.

My Seasons of greetings to you and your family.

Dear Friend, My Seasons of greetings to you and your family. I have a business transaction that will benefit both of us, and want to know if you can handle it and claim the fund to your country's account. The amount is ($10.5Million). After the transfer, we have to share it, 50% for me, and 50%

Re: [WIP/PATCH 7/6] perf: add a performance test for core.fsmonitor

On 6/2/2017 5:44 PM, David Turner wrote: BTW, a medium-sized (~250k files across 40k dirs) synthetic repo is available over bittorrent at: http://bitmover.com/2015-04-03-1M-git-bare.tar.bz2.torrent I tried Ævar's perf test with that (on a beefy laptop with SSD), and got significantly slower

Git hackathon London 8th/9th July - call for mentors

As some of you may have inferred, we had to postpone our plans for a hackathon event last month but we are now moving ahead with plans for one in London in July. Thank you to everyone who expressed interest in being a mentor after my last request. So, similar to last time... Bloomberg going to

Re: RFC: Would a config fetch.retryCount make sense?

On 6/5/2017 8:04 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 15:33, Ben Peart wrote: On 6/1/2017 8:48 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: Hi, we occasionally see "The remote end hung up unexpectedly" (pkt-line.c:265) on our `git fetch` calls (most noticeably in our

What does this output of git supposed to mean ?

Hello all, I noticed a weird output by git when trying to run 'git status' on a newly initialized git repository. It prints the following, > On branch master > > Initial commit > > nothing to commit (create/copy files and use "git add" to track) What's that "Initial commit" supposed to mean?

Re: Git Error Message

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:54:55PM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote: > > > I have installed the Git software and upon trying to update a > > > repository by the "open recent repository" link and am unable to > > > access the menu-or anything-from there. Instead a window pops up with > > > the

Re: Git Error Message

From: "Konstantin Khomoutov" On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:13:05AM -0700, christienne shultz wrote: I have installed the Git software and upon trying to update a repository by the "open recent repository" link and am unable to access the menu-or anything-from there.

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: add ability to cap the runtime of tests

> On 04 Jun 2017, at 09:29, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >> >>> Speeding up the test suite by simply cataloging and skipping tests >>> that

Re: RFC: Would a config fetch.retryCount make sense?

> On 01 Jun 2017, at 15:33, Ben Peart wrote: > > > > On 6/1/2017 8:48 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: >> Hi, >> we occasionally see "The remote end hung up unexpectedly" (pkt-line.c:265) >> on our `git fetch` calls (most noticeably in our automations). I expect >> random network

Git for Windows v2.13.1 delayed, was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.13.1

Hi team, On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The latest maintenance release Git v2.13.1 is now available at > the usual places. Due to unexpected problems in renewing my code-signing certificate, and another set of unexpected obstacles in obtaining a new one, Git for Windows v2.13.1 is

Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] convert: add "status=delayed" to filter process protocol

> On 02 Jun 2017, at 04:21, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Lars Schneider writes: > >> ... >> +After Git received the pathnames, it will request the corresponding >> +blobs again. These requests contain a pathname and an empty content >> +section. The

[PATCH] docs: suggest "Helped-by" rather than "Thanks-to"

The SubmittingPatches doc suggests adding "tags" in the style of "Signed-off-by" to commit messages, and suggests some in common usage. However, based on usage on the Git mailing list (and in particular, Junio C Hamano's email to René Genz on 23 April), the suggested "Thanks-to" is not common

t5313-pack-bounds-checks.sh flaky?

Hi Peff, t5313.7 failed recently on master [1]. Are you aware of any flaky parts in this test? Here is the output: expecting success: # We need two objects here, so we can plausibly require # an extended table (if the first object were larger than 2^31). do_pack

Re: [PATCH 2/2] add [--] to usage of filter-branch

Am 03.06.2017 um 12:17 schrieb Andreas Heiduk: > Signed-off-by: Andreas Heiduk > --- > Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt | 3 ++- > git-filter-branch.sh| 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git

Re: Git Error Message

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:13:05AM -0700, christienne shultz wrote: > I have installed the Git software and upon trying to update a > repository by the "open recent repository" link and am unable to > access the menu-or anything-from there. Instead a window pops up with > the following error

Re: [PATCHv4 1/2] clone: respect additional configured fetch refspecs during initial fetch

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:34:23AM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > >> +void add_and_parse_fetch_refspec(struct remote *remote, const char > >> *refspec) > >> +{ > >> + struct refspec *rs; > >> + > >> + add_fetch_refspec(remote, refspec); > >> + rs = parse_fetch_refspec(1, ); > >> +

Re: [PATCH] perf: work around the tested repo having an index.lock

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >>> > My feeling exactly.