Re: [PATCH] git submodule foreach: Skip eval for more than one argument

2014-03-04 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hey folks, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:10:15PM -0400, Anders Kaseorg wrote: ‘eval $@’ created an extra layer of shell interpretation, which was probably not expected by a user who passed multiple arguments to git submodule foreach: It seems this patch has broken the use of $name, $path, etc.

Re: [PATCH] git submodule foreach: Skip eval for more than one argument

2014-03-04 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:53:24PM +0100, Johan Herland wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote: matthijs@grubby:~/test$ git submodule foreach echo '$name' Entering 'test' $name jherland@beta ~/test$ echo '$name' $name What would you expect

Re: [PATCH] git submodule foreach: Skip eval for more than one argument

2014-03-04 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hey Johan, Ok, so IINM, Anders' original commit was about making git submodule foreach command behave more like command (from a naive user's perspective), Ok, that makes sense. while you rather expect to insert quotes/escapes to finely control exactly when shell interpretation happens.

git submodule manpage does not document --checkout

2014-02-25 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi, it seems git submodule supports --checkout, which is also mentioned indirectly in the manpage. However, the option itself is not mentioned in the synopsis or detailed option list. Gr. Matthijs signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-10-21 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Duy, I saw your patch series got accepted in git master a while back, great! Since I hope to be using the fixed behaviour soon, what was the plan for including it? Am I correct in thinking that git master will become 1.8.5 in a while? Would this series perhaps be considered for backporting to

Automatically filling in git send-email arguments based on an existing e-mail

2013-10-02 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, sometimes when I send a patch, I want to reply it to an existing e-mail, using pretty much the same recipient list. Currently, I have to: - copy-paste the message id for --in-reply-to header - copy one address for --to - copy the other addresses for the --cc's Since I can't just

Re: [PATCH] git-svn: Configure a prompt callback for gnome_keyring.

2013-08-29 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, any chance this patch can be merged? Gr. Matthijs On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:38:10PM +0200, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: This allows git-svn to prompt for a keyring unlock password, when a the needed gnome keyring is locked. This requires changes in the subversion perl bindings

Re: [PATCH 4/6] upload-pack: delegate rev walking in shallow fetch to pack-objects

2013-08-28 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Nguy, On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 04:52:05PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: upload-pack has a special rev walking code for shallow recipients. It works almost like the similar code in pack-objects except: 1. in upload-pack, graft points could be added for deepening 2. also when the

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-08-28 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Duy, I thought a bit but my thoughts often get stuck if I don't write them down in form of code :-) so this is what I got so far. 4/6 is a good thing in my opinion, but I might overlook something 6/6 is about this thread. The series looks good to me, though I don't know enough about the

[PATCH] Add testcase for needless objects during a shallow fetch

2013-08-28 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
into account the objects already present in the client. The actual problem was fixed by a recent patch series by Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy already. Signed-off-by: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl --- t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/t/t5500

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-08-12 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Duy, OK. Mathijs, do you want make a patch for it? I'm willing, but: - I don't understand the code and all of your comments well enough yet to start coding right away (though I haven't actually invested enough time in this yet, either). - I'll be on vacation for the next two weeks.

Re: [RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-07-12 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, [administrivia: you seem to have mail-followup-to that points at you and the list; is that really needed???] I'm not subscribed to the list, so yes :-) This happens when a client issues a fetch with a depth bigger or equal to the number of commits the server is ahead of the

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

2013-07-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, While implementing the above, I noticed my fix now introduced an off-by-one error the other way. When investigating, I found this commit: commit 682c7d2f1a2d1a5443777237450505738af2ff1a Author: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jan 11 16:05:47

[PATCH 1/3] upload-pack: Remove a piece of dead code

2013-07-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
the first check always fires first. This commit removes that check, making the code a bit more simple again. Signed-off-by: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl --- shallow.c | 17 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/shallow.c b/shallow.c index cbe2526

[PATCH 2/3] upload-pack: Introduce new fixed-off-by-one-depth server feature

2013-07-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
but not others, this can cause a client to behave differently based on the server version, which is unexpected. To prevent this, the new, fixed, depth behaviour is advertised as a server feature and the old behaviour is restored when the feature is not requested by the client. Signed-off-by: Matthijs

[PATCH 3/3] fetch-pack: Request fixed-off-by-one-depth when available

2013-07-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
. There is one corner case: A server without the fix cannot send less than 2 commmits, so when --depth=1 is specified a warning is shown and 2 commits are fetched instead of 1. Signed-off-by: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl --- fetch-pack.c | 26 -- 1 file changed, 24

[RFC PATCH] During a shallow fetch, prevent sending over unneeded objects

2013-07-11 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, while playing with shallow fetches, I've found that in some circumstances running git fetch with --depth can return too many objects (in particular, _all_ the objects for the requested revisions are returned, even when some of those objects are already known to the client). This

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

2013-07-09 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, Doing it correctly (in the shorter term) would involve: - adding a capability on the sending side fixed-off-by-one-depth to the protocol, and teaching the sending side to advertise the capability; - teaching the requestor that got --depth=N from the end user to

[PATCH] git-svn: Configure a prompt callback for gnome_keyring.

2013-06-18 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
This allows git-svn to prompt for a keyring unlock password, when a the needed gnome keyring is locked. This requires changes in the subversion perl bindings which have been committed to svn trunk (r1241554 and some followup commits) and are first available in the 1.8.0 release. ---

Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-svn: Configure a prompt callback for gnome_keyring.

2013-06-18 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:28:40AM +, Eric Wong wrote: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl wrote: This allows git-svn to prompt for a keyring unlock password, when a the needed gnome keyring is locked. This requires changes in the subversion perl bindings which have been

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

2013-05-30 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:04:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl writes: Did you consider how to implement this? Looking at the code, it seems the deepen parameter in the wire protocol now means: - 0: Do not change anything about

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

2013-05-28 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, I'm interested in getting a fetch tip commit only feature into git, I'll probably look into creating a patch for this. Sounds buggy. Would anything break if we were to make --depth=1 mean 1 deep, including the tip commit? As long as we do not change the meaning of the shallow

Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.

2013-05-28 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Jonathan, Did you consider how to implement this? Looking at the code, it seems the deepen parameter in the wire protocol now means: - 0: Do not change anything about the shallowness (i.e., fetch everything from the shallow root to the tip). - 0: Create new shallow commits at

Lines missing from git diff-tree -p -c output?

2013-05-15 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, while trying to parse git diff-tree output, I found out that in some cases it appears to generate an incorrect diff (AFAICT). I orginally found this in a 5-way merge commit in the Linux kernel, but managed to reduce this to something a lot more managable (an ordinary 2-way merge on a

Re: Lines missing from git diff-tree -p -c output?

2013-05-15 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi folks, $ git diff-tree -p -c HEAD d945a51b6ca22e6e8e550c53980d026f11b05158 diff --combined file index 3404f54,0eab113..e8c8c18 --- a/file +++ b/file @@@ -1,7 -1,5 +1,6 @@@ +LEFT BASE2 BASE3 BASE4 - BASE5 + BASE5MODIFIED BASE6 I found the spot in the code where this is

Re: Lines missing from git diff-tree -p -c output?

2013-05-15 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, I think the coalescing of two adjacent hunks into one is painting leading lines interesting to show context but not worth showing deletion before it incorrectly. Yup, that seems to be the case. Does this patch fix the issue? Yes, it fixes the issue. However, I think that this

[PATCH] combine-diff.c: Fix output when changes are exactly 3 lines apart

2013-05-15 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
not set the no_pre_delete flag. This commit fixes this problem by only setting the no_pre_delete flag for changes that were previously uninteresting. Signed-off-by: Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl --- combine-diff.c | 7 +-- t/t4038-diff-combined.sh | 47

Re: Lines missing from git diff-tree -p -c output?

2013-05-15 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
Hi Junio, Could you explain why you think it hides the real problem, and what kind of future enhancement may break it? I think the differences is mostly in the locality of the fix. In my proposed patch, the no_pre_delete flag is never set on an interesting line because it is checked in the line

Git does not handle changing inode numbers well

2012-08-08 Thread Matthijs Kooijman
(Please CC me, I'm not on the list) Hi folks, I've spent some time debugging an issue and I'd like to share the results. The conclusion of my debugging is that git does not currently handle changing inode numbers on files well. I have a custom Fuse filesystem, and fuse dynamically allocates