Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:46:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > which begs the question, how much slower would it be if we > > replaced the radix-sort with an in-place sort (e.g. heapsort). > > > > I hacked up the patch below, just for fun. I don't have any > > large repos (or enough disk space)

[PATCH v2] filter-branch: fix errors caused by refs that cannot be used with ^0

"git filter-branch -- --all" print unwanted error messages when refs that cannot be used with ^0 exist. Such refs can be created by "git replace" with trees or blobs. Also, "git tag" with trees or blobs can create such refs. --- git-filter-branch.sh | 14 --

[RFC PATCH v4] rebase-interactive

This is v4 of the first 2 patches of "[RFC PATCH vV n/9] rebase-interactive", looking forward to any additional comments. Wink Saville (2): rebase-interactive: Simplify pick_on_preserving_merges rebase: Update invocation of rebase dot-sourced scripts git-rebase--am.sh | 11

[RFC PATCH v4] rebase: Update invocation of rebase dot-sourced scripts

The backend scriptlets for "git rebase" were structured in a bit unusual way for historical reasons. Originally, it was designed in such a way that dot-sourcing them from "git rebase" would be sufficient to invoke the specific backend. When it was discovered that some shell implementations (e.g.

[RFC PATCH v4] rebase-interactive: Simplify pick_on_preserving_merges

Use compound if statement instead of nested if statements to simplify pick_on_preserving_merges. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville Reviewed-by: Junio C Hamano --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 17 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 01:28:12AM +, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > Of the used heap after your patches: > > > > - ~40% of that is from packlist_alloc() > > - ~17% goes to "struct object" > > - ~10% for the object.c hash table to store all the "struct object" > > - ~7% goes to the delta cache

Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: consider refs can refer to an object other than commit or tag

> However, if we pre-filter to limit the refs in "$tempdir/heads" to > those that are committish (i.e. those that pass "$ref^0") like the > patch and subsequent discussion suggests, wouldn't we lose the > warning for these replace refs and non-committish tags. We perhaps > could do something

[PATCH] branch: implement shortcut to delete last branch

Add support for using the "-" shortcut to delete the last checked-out branch. This functionality already exists for git-merge, git-checkout, and git-revert. Signed-off-by: Aaron Greenberg --- builtin/branch.c | 3 +++ t/t3200-branch.sh | 9 + 2 files changed,

[PATCH] branch: implement shortcut to delete last branch

This patch gives git-branch the ability to delete the previous checked-out branch using the "-" shortcut. This shortcut already exists for git-checkout, git-merge, and git-revert. One of my common workflows is to do some work on a local topic branch and push it to a remote, where it gets merged in

Re: [RFC PATCH v3.1 2/9 2/2] rebase-interactive: Do not automatically run code

Wink Saville writes: > Currently I'm not rebasing the other commits (3..9) > to reduce the amount of work I have to do in each > review cycle, is that OK? Yeah, I want to see others more heavily involved in this part of the system to comment on your patches. As to the

[GSOC]About the microproject related to CI

Hi all, I'm Zhibin Li, an undergraduate from China and I'm interested in automated testing. Since the application deadline is coming, hope it's not too late for me to start with the microproject. If it's ok, I would like to take Git CI Improvements 4 as my starting point. But the description

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On 22/03/18 09:32, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:59:19PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >>> I hate to be a wet blanket, but am I the only one who is wondering >>> whether the tradeoffs is worth it? 8% memory reduction doesn't seem >>> mind-bogglingly good, >> >> AEvar measured RSS.

Re: [GSoC] Convert “git stash” to builtin proposal

Hello, On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 23:08 +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu > wrote: > > > > * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of > > this > > project. > > Could you explain

Re: [RFC PATCH v3.1 2/9 2/2] rebase-interactive: Do not automatically run code

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Wink Saville writes: > >> At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the >> same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent. > > I mumbled about making

[ANNOUNCE] Git v2.16.3

The latest maintenance release Git v2.16.3 is now available at the usual places. It merges many small fixes and documentation updates that have been in the 'master' branch for a few weeks. The tarballs are found at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/ The following public

Donation made to you

-- Donation made to you. Donor: Mrs.Elisabeth Schaeffler Thumann. please Contact;(mrselisabeth.schaefflerth0...@gmail.com) for more details.

Donation made to you.

-- Donation made to you. Donor: Mrs.Elisabeth Schaeffler Thumann. please Contact;(mrselisabeth.schaefflerth0...@gmail.com) for more details.

Re: [RFC][GSoC] Project proposal: convert interactive rebase to C

Hi, here is my second draft of my proposal. As last time, any feedback is welcome :) I did not write my phone number and address here for obvious reasons, but they will be in the “about me” section of the final proposal. Apart from that, do you think there is something to add? --- ABSTRACT

Re: The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

Konstantin Ryabitsev writes: > $ time git rev-list --max-parents=0 HEAD > a101ad945113be3d7f283a181810d76897f0a0d6 > cd26f1bd6bf3c73cc5afe848677b430ab342a909 > be0e5c097fc206b863ce9fe6b3cfd6974b0110f4 > 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 > > real0m6.311s

Re: The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

On 03/22/18 15:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am not sure how Konstantin defines "the most efficient", but if it > is "with the smallest number of bits exchanged between the > repositories", then the answer would probably be to find the root > commit(s) in each repository and if they share any

Re: [RFC PATCH v3.1 2/9 2/2] rebase-interactive: Do not automatically run code

Wink Saville writes: > At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the > same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent. I mumbled about making git_rebase__$type functions for all $type in my previous response, but that was

[RFC PATCH v3.1 2/9 2/2] rebase-interactive: Do not automatically run code

At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--am.sh | 17 ++--- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 8 +++-

git: cover letter and automatic Cc: [was Re: [PATCH 23/45] sched: add do_sched_yield() helper; remove in-kernel call to sched_yield()]

Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> But why !? Either Cc me on more of the series such that the whole makes >> sense, or better yet, write a proper Changelog. > > This is a common issue. We should encourage people to always

Re: The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

On Thu, Mar 22 2018, Junio C. Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > >> But of course that'll just give you the tips. You could then use `git >> cat-file --batch-check` on both ends to see what commits from the other >> they report knowing about, in case they have

Re: The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > But of course that'll just give you the tips. You could then use `git > cat-file --batch-check` on both ends to see what commits from the other > they report knowing about, in case they have branches that are > ahead/behind the other. I am not

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] Call git_rebase__interactive from run_specific_rebase

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Wink Saville writes: > >> Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes >> it directly after sourcing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wink Saville >> --- >>

Re: The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

On Thu, Mar 22 2018, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > What is the most efficient way to test if repoA and repoB share common > commits? My goal is to automatically figure out if repoB can benefit > from setting alternates to repoA and repacking. I currently do it by > comparing the output of

[GSoC][PATCH v7] parse-options: do not show usage upon invalid option value

Usually, the usage should be shown only if the user does not know what options are available. If the user specifies an invalid value, the user is already aware of the available options. In this case, there is no point in displaying the usage anymore. This patch applies to "git tag --contains",

Re: [GSoC][PATCH v6] parse-options: do not show usage upon invalid option value

Hi, Thank you a lot for your advice! I will keep in mind your words next time I will send a patch. Best regards, Paul Ungurenanu

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] Call git_rebase__interactive from run_specific_rebase

Wink Saville writes: > Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes > it directly after sourcing. > > Signed-off-by: Wink Saville > --- > git-rebase--interactive.sh | 11 --- > git-rebase.sh | 11 +-- > 2

Re: [PATCH] completion: add option completion for most builtin commands

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Duy Nguyen writes: > >> +__git_main_with_parseopt_helper=' >> + blame cat-file check-attr check-ignore >> + check-mailmap checkout-index column count-objects fast-export >> + hash-object

Re: [PATCH] completion: add option completion for most builtin commands

Duy Nguyen writes: > +__git_main_with_parseopt_helper=' > + blame cat-file check-attr check-ignore > + check-mailmap checkout-index column count-objects fast-export > + hash-object index-pack interpret-trailers merge-file mktree > + pack-objects pack-refs prune

Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:32 AM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hi Wink, > > > Please see "[RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive" and > > "[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: ...". I'm looking for > > advice on how to proceed. > > Sadly, I had almost no time to spend

[PATCH v2 3/3] sha1_name: use bsearch_pack() for abbreviations

When computing abbreviation lengths for an object ID against a single packfile, the method find_abbrev_len_for_pack() currently implements binary search. This is one of several implementations. One issue with this implementation is that it ignores the fanout table in the pack- index. Translate

[PATCH v2 0/3] Use bsearch_hash() for abbreviations

Thanks to Jonathan and Brian for the help with the proper way to handle OIDs and existing callers to bsearch_hash(). This patch includes one commit that Brian sent in the previous discussion (included again here for completeness). Derrick Stolee (2): packfile: define and use bsearch_pack()

[PATCH v2 2/3] packfile: define and use bsearch_pack()

The method bsearch_hash() generalizes binary searches using a fanout table. The only consumer is currently find_pack_entry_one(). It requires a bit of pointer arithmetic to align the fanout table and the lookup table depending on the pack-index version. Extract the pack-index pointer arithmetic

[PATCH v2 1/3] sha1_name: convert struct min_abbrev_data to object_id

From: "brian m. carlson" This structure is only written to in one place, where we already have a struct object_id. Convert the struct to use a struct object_id instead. Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson --- sha1_name.c | 6 +++--- 1

Re: [PATCH] completion: add option completion for most builtin commands

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Duy Nguyen writes: > > >> And that pattern repeats throughout the patch. I wonder if we can > >> express the same a lot more concisely by updating the caller that > >> calls these command specific helpers? > >

Re: [GSoC] Regarding "Convert scripts to builtins"

Hi Wink, On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote: > I plead guilty to being the preson refactoring --preserve-merges. But > after reading this and seeing that --recreate-merges is coming and > possibly git-rebase--* moving to C I'm worried I'd be messing things up. Don't worry. We will just

Re: [PATCH] completion: add option completion for most builtin commands

Duy Nguyen writes: >> And that pattern repeats throughout the patch. I wonder if we can >> express the same a lot more concisely by updating the caller that >> calls these command specific helpers? > > Yeah. I almost went to just generate and eval these functions. But we >

Re: [PATCH] completion: clear cached --options when sourcing the completion script

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:16 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > The established way to update the completion script in an already > running shell is to simply source it again: this brings in any new > --options and features, and clears caching variables. E.g. it clears > the

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> > That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving >> > fetches, but you

Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: consider refs can refer to an object other than commit or tag

Yuki Kokubun writes: >> Yuki Kokubun writes: >> >> >> Yuki Kokubun writes: >> >> >> >> > "git filter-branch -- --all" can be confused when refs that refer to >> >> > objects >> >> > other than commits or tags exists.

[RFC PATCH v3 3/9] Indent function git_rebase__interactive

Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 432 ++--- 1 file changed, 215 insertions(+), 217 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh index 213d75f43..a79330f45 100644 ---

[RFC PATCH v3 8/9] Remove unused code paths from git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges

Since git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges is now always called with $preserve_merges = t we can remove the unused code paths. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 152 - 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+),

[RFC PATCH v3 7/9] Remove unused code paths from git_rebase__interactive

Since git_rebase__interactive is now never called with $preserve_merges = t we can remove those code paths. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 95 ++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-) diff

[RFC PATCH v3 5/9] Use new functions in git_rebase__interactive

Use initiate_action, setup_reflog_action, init_basic_state, init_revisions_and_shortrevisions and complete_action. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 187 ++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-)

[RFC PATCH v3 9/9] Remove merges_option and a blank line

merges_option is unused in git_rebase__interactive and always empty in git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges so it can be removed. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 10 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git

[RFC PATCH v3 4/9] Extract functions out of git_rebase__interactive

The extracted functions are: - initiate_action - setup_reflog_action - init_basic_state - init_revisions_and_shortrevisions - complete_action Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 211 + 1 file

[RFC PATCH v3 2/9] Call git_rebase__interactive from run_specific_rebase

Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes it directly after sourcing. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 11 --- git-rebase.sh | 11 +-- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff

[RFC PATCH v3 6/9] Add and use git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges

At the moment it's an exact copy of git_rebase__interactive except the name has changed. Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 108 + git-rebase.sh | 7 ++- 2 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 1

[RFC PATCH v3 0/9] rebase-interactive:

I've incorporated review feed back to date. I'm split the change into 9 commits with each commit do a single class of operation. I've prepared these commits using github and have Travis-CI setup to test my changes. Of the 9 commits 2 failed, the 1st and 5th commits, I tested those two locally and

[RFC PATCH v3 1/9] Simplify pick_on_preserving_merges

Signed-off-by: Wink Saville --- git-rebase--interactive.sh | 17 +++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh index 331c8dfea..561e2660e 100644 --- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh +++

RE: Bug With git rebase -p

I meant to say that I installed 2.17.0-rc0, and it worked perfectly. Sorry for the ambiguity. -Original Message- From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:jch2...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Junio C Hamano Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:39 PM To: Johannes Schindelin Cc:

Re: [PATCH 0/2] rebase --recreate-merges --keep-empty: don't prune empty

Phillip Wood writes: > On 20/03/18 19:32, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> With or without the above plan, what we saw from you were a bit >> messy to queue. The --keep-empty fix series is based on 'maint', >> while the --signoff series depends on changes that happened to

The most efficient way to test if repositories share the same objects

Hi, all: What is the most efficient way to test if repoA and repoB share common commits? My goal is to automatically figure out if repoB can benefit from setting alternates to repoA and repacking. I currently do it by comparing the output of "show-ref --tags -s", but that does not work for repos

UriFormatException output when interacting with a Git server

I'm getting this error on a fresh install of git version 2.16.2.windows.1: fatal: UriFormatException encountered.    queryUrl See this post I found, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48775400/git-fatal-uriformatexception-encountered-actualurl for more details.  Note that the latest comments

Re: Bug With git rebase -p

Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Joseph Strauss wrote: > >> Perfect. Thank you. > > You are welcome. > > I am puzzled, though... does your message mean that you tested the Git for > Windows v2.17.0-rc0 installer and it did fix your problem? Or do you

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typo in merge-strategies documentation

Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> David Pursehouse writes: >> >> > From: David Pursehouse >> > >> > Signed-off-by: David Pursehouse >> > --- >>

Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: consider refs can refer to an object other than commit or tag

> Yuki Kokubun writes: > > >> Yuki Kokubun writes: > >> > >> > "git filter-branch -- --all" can be confused when refs that refer to > >> > objects > >> > other than commits or tags exists. > >> > Because "git rev-parse --all" that is

[PATCH] completion: clear cached --options when sourcing the completion script

The established way to update the completion script in an already running shell is to simply source it again: this brings in any new --options and features, and clears caching variables. E.g. it clears the variables caching the list of (all|porcelain) git commands, so when they are later

Re: [PATCH v2] filter-branch: use printf instead of echo -e

Il 21/03/2018 22:50, Johannes Schindelin ha scritto: Hi Michele, On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Michele Locati wrote: [...] -- 2.16.2.windows.1 Yay! Out of curiosity: did the CONTRIBUTING.md file help that was recently turned into a guide how to contribute to Git (for Windows) by Derrick Stolee?

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving > > fetches, but you could at least get out of it by running "git repack". > > I was puzzled by

Re: [PATCH 7/7] diff-highlight: detect --graph by indent

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:59:31AM +, Phillip Wood wrote: > > +sub handle_line { > > + my $orig = shift; > > + local $_ = $orig; > > + > > + # match a graph line that begins a commit > > + if (/^(?:$COLOR?\|$COLOR?[ ])* # zero or more leading "|" with space > > +

Re: [PATCH 0/2] rebase --recreate-merges --keep-empty: don't prune empty

On 20/03/18 19:32, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood writes: > >> On 20/03/18 15:42, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> ... >>> As indicated in another reply, I'd rather rebase the --recreate-merges >>> patches on top of your --keep-empty patch series. This obviously

Re: [PATCH 7/7] diff-highlight: detect --graph by indent

On 21/03/18 05:59, Jeff King wrote: > This patch fixes a corner case where diff-highlight may > scramble some diffs when combined with --graph. > > Commit 7e4ffb4c17 (diff-highlight: add support for --graph > output, 2016-08-29) taught diff-highlight to skip past the > graph characters at the

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote: > That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving > fetches, but you could at least get out of it by running "git repack". I was puzzled by this "broken state" statement. But you were right! I focused on the

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > I wish you were right about the rarity, but it's unfortunately something > > I have seen multiple times in the wild (and why I spent time optimizing > > the many-packs case for pack-objects). Unfortunately I don't know how > > often

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:32:12AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > So 27% of the total heap goes away if you switch to a separate rev-list. > Though it's mostly just going to a different process, it does help peak > because that process would have exited by the time we get to the > revindex bits. > >

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:59:19PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > I hate to be a wet blanket, but am I the only one who is wondering > > whether the tradeoffs is worth it? 8% memory reduction doesn't seem > > mind-bogglingly good, > > AEvar measured RSS. If we count objects[] array alone, the

Dear Friend Please Respond

From:MR.RICHARD SANDOO. Bill and Exchange Manager Micro Finance Bank Plc Burkina Faso Dear Friend, I know that this mail will come to you as a surprise. I am MR.RICHARD SANDOO. and I am the bill and Exchange manager in a Bank here in my country .I Hope that you will not expose or betray this

Re: [PATCH v2] routines to generate JSON data

On Wed, Mar 21 2018, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote: > So, I'm not sure we have a route to get UTF-8-clean data out of Git, and if > we do it is beyond the scope of this patch series. > > So I think for our uses here, defining this as "JSON-like" is probably the > best answer. We write the

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > [...]Yes, having that many packs is insane, but that's going to be >> > small consolation to somebody whose automated maintenance program now >> >

Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] nd/pack-objects-pack-struct updates

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > [...]Yes, having that many packs is insane, but that's going to be > > small consolation to somebody whose automated maintenance program now > > craps out at 16k packs, when it previously would have just worked to > >

[no subject]

hi Git https://goo.gl/RLDyn8 Bbenta

Re: [PATCH v2] routines to generate JSON data

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 07:28:26PM +, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote: > It includes a new "struct json_writer" which is used to guide the > accumulation of JSON data -- knowing whether an object or array is > currently being composed. This allows error checking during construction. > > It