On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:54:38PM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
> +
> +#define EOIE_SIZE (4 + GIT_SHA1_RAWSZ) /* <4-byte offset> + <20-byte hash> */
> +#define EOIE_SIZE_WITH_HEADER (4 + 4 + EOIE_SIZE) /* <4-byte signature> +
> <4-byte length> + EOIE_SIZE */
If you make these variables instead of
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 06:24:58PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> When unpack_trees() constructs a new index, it copies cache entries
> from the original index [1]. prepare_to_write_split_index() has to
> deal with this, and it has a dedicated code path for copied entries
> that are present in the
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 06:24:59PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> diff --git a/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh b/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh
> index fbb77046da..5dc221ef38 100755
> --- a/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh
> +++ b/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh
> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ done
>
> for trial in
--
...
Total 21 (delta 8), reused 0 (delta 0)
error: RPC failed; result=56, HTTP code = 0
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Everything up-to-date
--
I am getting the above from "git push".
I am having intermittent HTTPS
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:54:38PM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
> index 6ba99e2c96..80255d3088 100644
> --- a/read-cache.c
> +++ b/read-cache.c
> +static size_t read_eoie_extension(const char *mmap, size_t mmap_size)
> +{
<>
> +
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> OK. This unfortunately came a bit too late for today's integration
>> cycle, so I'll leave this in my inbox and replace what is queued
>> with it later.
>>
>> Unless there is another one to supersede this proposal comes before
>> that happens,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> OK. This unfortunately came a bit too late for today's integration
> cycle, so I'll leave this in my inbox and replace what is queued
> with it later.
>
> Unless there is another one to supersede this proposal comes before
> that happens, that is.
>
> Thanks.
Sounds
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> My experience is that bug reporters are very sensitive to hints the
> project gives about what kind of bugs they want to receive. I'd
> rather make use of that lesson now instead of waiting to relearn it in
> the wild. Here goes.
OK. This unfortunately came a bit
Sam McKelvie writes:
>> Or perhaps
>>
>> rev-parse: --show-superproject-working-tree should work during a merge
>>
>> may be more to the point. It does not hint the root cause of the
>> bug like the other one, but is more direct how the breakage would
>> have been observed by the end users.
Ramsay Jones writes:
>> if (!nr) {
>> ieot_blocks = istate->cache_nr / THREAD_COST;
>> - if (ieot_blocks < 1)
>> - ieot_blocks = 1;
>> cpus = online_cpus();
>>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:30:57AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:25:45PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > The recently-introduced "core.alternateRefsCommand" allows callers to
> > specify with high flexibility the tips that they wish to advertise from
> > alternates. This
Junio C Hamano writes:
> ... However, because the same mistakes are inherited to
> builtin/rebase.c by these topics, we'd need a matching fix to
> correct 07664161 ("builtin rebase: error out on incompatible
> option/mode combinations", 2018-08-08) and either squash the fix
> into that commit,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:26:13AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:25:42PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > Let the repository that has alternates configure this command to avoid
> > trusting the alternate to provide us a safe command to run in the shell.
> > To behave
Ralf Thielow writes:
> Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow
> ---
> git-rebase.sh | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
This patch itself will soon stop mattering once the group of
rebase-in-c topics graduate, which hopefully will happen during this
cycle. However, because the
> On Sep 28, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Sam McKelvie writes:
>
>>> Ah, that, too. I meant to correct triple ell, though ;-)
>>> ...
>>
>> I wholeheartedly approve of that plan and your tweaking commit below. Thank
>> you, Junio.
>
> Thanks for a fix. But now I re-read
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:42 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
> > The previous patch suggested the strbuf header to be the leading example
> > of how we would want our APIs to be documented. This may lead to some
> > scrutiny of that code and the coding style (which is
Stefan Beller writes:
> The previous patch suggested the strbuf header to be the leading example
> of how we would want our APIs to be documented. This may lead to some
> scrutiny of that code and the coding style (which is different from the
> API documentation style) and hence might be taken
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I actually do not mind the rule to be more like
>
> * Use the same parameter names used in the function declaration when
>the description in the API documentation refers the parameter.
Assuming that we adopt the above guideline, let's extending it to
the original
Subject: git doc: direct bug reporters to mailing list archive
The mailing list archive can help a user encountering a bug to tell
whether a recent regression has already been reported and whether a
longstanding bug has already had some discussion to start their
thinking.
Based-on-patch-by:
Thank you for the review, commenting inline.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:29 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kyle Hubert writes:
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improvement to only call Git Credential Helper once
>
> Nobody will send in a patch to worsen things, so phrases like
> "Improvement to" that
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> That said, that seems to me like a lot of work to avoid adding some
>> patches to "next" that belong in "next" anyway. I understand why the
>> Git for Windows maintainer does not always have time to upstream
>>
On 28/09/18 20:41, Ben Peart wrote:
>
>
> On 9/28/2018 1:07 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ben Peart writes:
>>
Why does multithreading have to be disabled in this test?
>>>
>>> If multi-threading is enabled, it will write out the IEOT extension
>>> which changes the SHA and causes the
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:26 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
> > Internally we have rolled out this as an experiment for
> > "submodules replacing the repo tool[1]". The repo tool is described as:
> >
> > Repo unifies Git repositories when
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> So let's format strbuf.h in a way that we'd like to see:
>> * omit the extern keyword from function declarations
>
> OK
>
>> * name all parameters (usually the parameters are obvious from its type,
>> but consider exceptions like
>> `int
On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> So it's similar to various packages that have "alternates" and are semi
>> or permanently forked, like emacs & xemacs, JDK etc., although I can't
>> recall one offhand that's quite similar to GFW v.s.
Stefan Beller writes:
> So let's format strbuf.h in a way that we'd like to see:
> * omit the extern keyword from function declarations
OK
> * name all parameters (usually the parameters are obvious from its type,
> but consider exceptions like
> `int strbuf_getwholeline_fd(struct strbuf
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> We recommend documenting in the header over documenting near the
> implementation to encourage people to write the docs that are
> readable without peeking at the implemention.
s/implemention/implementation/
> - - When you come up with an
On 9/28/2018 1:07 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ben Peart writes:
Why does multithreading have to be disabled in this test?
If multi-threading is enabled, it will write out the IEOT extension
which changes the SHA and causes the test to fail.
I think it is a design mistake to let the
Kyle Hubert writes:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improvement to only call Git Credential Helper once
Nobody will send in a patch to worsen things, so phrases like
"Improvement to" that convey no useful information has no place on
the title.
There probably are multiple ways that credential helpers
Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow
---
git-rebase.sh | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 7973447645..45b6ee9c0e 100755
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -553,15 +553,15 @@ then
# Note: incompatibility with
On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Internally we have rolled out this as an experiment for
> "submodules replacing the repo tool[1]". The repo tool is described as:
>
> Repo unifies Git repositories when necessary, performs uploads to the
> Gerrit revision control system, and
We recently (about eight months ago) transitioned to git source control systems
for several very large, very complex systems. We brought over several active
versions requiring maintenance updates, and also set up several subtree repos
to manage code shared between the systems. Recently, we
Ben Peart writes:
> Junio, can you squash in the following patch or would you prefer I
> reroll the entire series?
Squash it to f8cd77d5 ("fsmonitor: update GIT_TEST_FSMONITOR
support", 2018-09-18) and use the two new lines in the log message?
I can do that.
Thanks.
On 9/27/2018 8:19 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:54:38PM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
The End of Index Entry (EOIE) is used to locate the end of the variable
Nit: perhaps start with:
The End of Index Entry (EOIE) optional extension can be used to ...
to make it clearer
When multiple identical parents are detected for a commit being considered
for copying, explicitly check whether one is the common merge base between
the commits. If so, the other commit can be used as the identical parent;
if not, a merge must be performed to maintain history.
In some situations
In a particularly complex repo, subtree split was not creating
compatible splits for pushing back to a separate repo. Addressing
one of the issues requires recursive handling of parent commits
that were not initially considered by the algorithm. This commit
makes no functional changes, but
Adds recursive evaluation of parent commits which were not part of the
initial commit list when performing a split.
Split expects all relevant commits to be reachable from the target commit
but not reachable from any previous rejoins. However, a branch could be
based on a commit prior to a
Changes the behavior of --ignore-joins to always consider a subtree add
commit, and ignore only splits and squashes.
The --ignore-joins option is documented to ignore prior --rejoin commits.
However, it additionally ignored subtree add commits generated when a
subtree was initially added to a
Taylor Blau writes:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:49:36PM -0700, Stephen P. Smith wrote:
>> When updating the collect and print functions, it was found that
>> status variables were initialized in the collect phase and some
>> variables were later freed in the print functions.
>
> Nit: I think
Greetings,
I was reviewing the tformat parameters on:
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-log (middle of the page).
Specifically: %<|(): make the next placeholder take at least until
Nth columns, padding spaces on the right if necessary
I found the instructions regard space formatting to be very
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> (dropping cc-s to my internal address that I don't use on this list
> and to git-c...@google.com which bounces)
> Hi,
>
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> Internally we have rolled out this as an experiment for
>> "submodules replacing the repo tool[1]". The repo tool is
Sam McKelvie writes:
>> Ah, that, too. I meant to correct triple ell, though ;-)
>> ...
>
> I wholeheartedly approve of that plan and your tweaking commit below. Thank
> you, Junio.
Thanks for a fix. But now I re-read the title and think about it,
this is mistitled. The word 'stage' in
> > + /*
> > +* We can avoid listing refs if all of them are exact
> > +* OIDs
> > +*/
> > + must_list_refs = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < rs->nr; i++) {
> > + if (!rs->items[i].exact_sha1)
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 09:30:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:28:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Duy Nguyen writes:
> >>
> >> > Here's the patch that adds that external commands and aliases
> >> > sections. I feel that external
The previous patch suggested the strbuf header to be the leading example
of how we would want our APIs to be documented. This may lead to some
scrutiny of that code and the coding style (which is different from the
API documentation style) and hence might be taken as an example on how
to format
SZEDER Gábor writes:
> Junio,
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:44:30PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh b/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh
>> new file mode 100755
>> index 00..ebde418d7e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/t/t1701-racy-split-index.sh
>> @@ -0,0
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:11 PM Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:27:32PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> > > There are different opinions on how to document an API properly.
> > > Discussion turns out nobody disagrees with documenting new APIs on the
> > > function level in the
Ben Peart writes:
>> Why does multithreading have to be disabled in this test?
>
> If multi-threading is enabled, it will write out the IEOT extension
> which changes the SHA and causes the test to fail.
I think it is a design mistake to let the writing processes's
capability decide what is
Rasmus Villemoes writes:
>>> + if (follow_alias > 0) {
>>> + fprintf_ln(stderr,
>>> + _("Continuing to help for %s in %0.1f
>>> seconds."),
>>> + alias, follow_alias/10.0);
>>> +
Martin Ågren writes:
>> Hm. I think this encourages a behavior that I want to discourage:
>> assuming that if a bug has already been reported then there's nothing
>> more for the new user to add.
>
> It was my hope that all of these could be inferred from the above text:
>
> "I'll just drop a
Jeff King writes:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:27:32PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> > There are different opinions on how to document an API properly.
>> > Discussion turns out nobody disagrees with documenting new APIs on the
>> > function level in the header file and high level concepts
When calling the Git Credential Helper that is set in the git config,
the get command can return a credential. Git immediately turns around
and calls the store command, even though that credential was just
retrieved by the Helper. This creates two side effects. First of all,
if the Helper requires
Taylor Blau writes:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:28:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Duy Nguyen writes:
>>
>> > Here's the patch that adds that external commands and aliases
>> > sections. I feel that external commands section is definitely good to
>> > have even if we don't replace "help
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor
---
t/t1700-split-index.sh | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t1700-split-index.sh b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
index be22398a85..822257ff7d 100755
--- a/t/t1700-split-index.sh
+++ b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
@@ -6,6 +6,9 @@ test_description='split
Third round of fixing occasional test failures when run with
'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes', with only two rather minor changes since the
previous version; just look at the trivial interdiff below.
SZEDER Gábor (6):
t1700-split-index: document why FSMONITOR is disabled in this test
script
't1700-split-index.sh' checks that the index was split correctly under
various circumstances and that all the different ways to turn the
split index feature on and off work correctly. To do so, most of its
tests use 'test-tool dump-split-index' to see which files have their
cache entries in the
Ever since the split index feature was introduced [1], refreshing a
split index is prone to a variant of the classic racy git problem.
Consider the following sequence of commands updating the split index
when the shared index contains a racily clean cache entry, i.e. an
entry whose cached stat
When unpack_trees() constructs a new index, it copies cache entries
from the original index [1]. prepare_to_write_split_index() has to
deal with this, and it has a dedicated code path for copied entries
that are present in the shared index, where it compares the cached
data in the corresponding
'struct split_index' contains the field 'nr_deletions', whose name
with the 'nr_' prefix suggests that it contains the number of deleted
cache entries. However, barring its initialization to 0, this field
is only ever set to 1, indicating that there is at least one deleted
entry, but not the
Ever since the split index feature was introduced [1], refreshing a
split index is prone to a variant of the classic racy git problem.
There are a couple of unrelated tests in the test suite that
occasionally fail when run with 'GIT_TEST_SPLIT_INDEX=yes', but
't1700-split-index.sh', the only test
Sorry, this patch is damaged. I'm moving to `git send-email` now.
-Kyle
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:10 AM Kyle Hubert wrote:
>
> When calling the Git Credential Helper that is set in the git config,
> the get command can return a credential. Git immediately turns around
> and calls the store
Instead of running `test "foo" = "$(bar)"`, we prefix the whole thing
with `echo`. Comparing to nearby tests makes it clear that this is just
debug leftover. This line has actually been modified four times since it
was introduced in e52290428b (General ref log reading improvements.,
2006-05-19)
On 28/09/18 02:20, Ben Peart wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/2018 6:24 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>>
>> commit 225df8a468 ("ieot: add Index Entry Offset Table (IEOT)
>> extension", 2018-09-26) added a 'DIV_ROUND_UP(entries, ieot_blocks)
>> expression, where ieot_blocks was set to zero for a single cpu
>>
When calling the Git Credential Helper that is set in the git config,
the get command can return a credential. Git immediately turns around
and calls the store command, even though that credential was just
retrieved by the Helper. This creates two side effects. First of all,
if the Helper requires
On 9/28/2018 10:21 AM, Ben Peart wrote:
On 9/28/2018 6:01 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:29:35PM +, Ben Peart wrote:
diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
index 56a417439c..47165f7eab 100644
--- a/t/README
+++ b/t/README
@@ -319,6 +319,10 @@ GIT_TEST_OE_DELTA_SIZE=
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:58:58AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > From: Jeff King
>
> Pretty sure that isn't right. :)
Indeed that isn't right :-). I try my best to review my patches
diligently before submitting them, but here's an interesting side-story
if you're interested:
I use a script 'git
On 9/28/2018 6:01 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:29:35PM +, Ben Peart wrote:
diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
index 56a417439c..47165f7eab 100644
--- a/t/README
+++ b/t/README
@@ -319,6 +319,10 @@ GIT_TEST_OE_DELTA_SIZE= exercises the uncommon
pack-objects code
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:49:36PM -0700, Stephen P. Smith wrote:
> When updating the collect and print functions, it was found that
> status variables were initialized in the collect phase and some
> variables were later freed in the print functions.
Nit: I think that in the past Eric Sunshine
On 9/27/2018 8:26 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:54:39PM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
Add support for a new index.threads config setting which will be used to
control the threading code in do_read_index(). A value of 0 will tell the
index code to automatically determine the
In the meantime I've created this simple script, but what a hack...
#!/bin/bash
git ls-files -v | grep "^S " | cut -c3- | readarray ignored
for x in "${ignored[@]}"; do
git update-index --no-skip-worktree -- "$x"
done
git checkout -m $@
for x in "${ignored[@]}"; do
git update-index
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:35 PM SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 01:53:40PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> > + IDX=$(cat promisorlist | sed "s/promisor$/idx/") &&
>
> You could drop the unnecessary 'cat', 'sed' is capable to open a file
> on its own.
>
> > + git
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 01:53:40PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
> From: Christian Couder
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano
> ---
> t/t0410-partial-clone.sh | 24 +++-
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:57:53AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > Thanks. I had ~400 runs of the tests I ran before and they were all
> > OK. Now trying also with t1701 (which I hadn't noticed was a new
> > test...).
>
> Ran that overnight with the same conditions as before. 2683 OK
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:29:35PM +, Ben Peart wrote:
> diff --git a/t/README b/t/README
> index 56a417439c..47165f7eab 100644
> --- a/t/README
> +++ b/t/README
> @@ -319,6 +319,10 @@ GIT_TEST_OE_DELTA_SIZE= exercises the uncommon
> pack-objects code
> path where deltas larger than this
On 2018-09-26 20:49, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 08:16:36AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>
>> If we expect users to use "git cp --help" a lot more often than "git
>> help cp" (or the other way around), one way to give a nicer experience
>> may be to unconditionally make "git cp
On 2018-09-26 20:12, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> In the case where you are scripting (and want to know what 'git co'
> means for programmatic usage), I think that there are two options. One,
> which you note above, is the 'git -c help.followAlias=false ...'
> approach, which I don't think is so bad
On 2018-09-26 17:19, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:42 PM Taylor Blau wrote:
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * We use split_cmdline() to get the first word of the
>>> + * alias, to ensure that we use the same rules as when
>>> + * the alias
On 2018-09-26 17:16, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rasmus Villemoes writes:
>
>> +/*
>> + * We use split_cmdline() to get the first word of the
>> + * alias, to ensure that we use the same rules as when
>> + * the alias is actually used. split_cmdline()
On Thu, Sep 27 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 03:53:24PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 27 2018, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is the second attempt to fix the racy split index problem,
79 matches
Mail list logo
