Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] format-patch: introduce --base=auto option
- From
Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
- Date
- Mar 24, 2016, 04:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20160324041925.GB26582@yexl-desktop>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqbn65caqi.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:25:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
>Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes: > >> + >> + diff_setup(&diffopt); >> + DIFF_OPT_SET(&diffopt, RECURSIVE); >> + diff_setup_done(&diffopt); > >It is annoying that you moved "diff" stuff here (if it can be >initialized once at the beginning and then reused over and over, >it should have been done here from the beginning at PATCH 2/4).
My bad, I will put "diff" stuff at the beginning at PATCH 2/4.
Show 36 quoted lines
>
>> + if (!strcmp(base_commit, "auto")) {
>> + curr_branch = branch_get(NULL);
>> + upstream = branch_get_upstream(curr_branch, NULL);
>> + if (upstream) {
>> + if (get_sha1(upstream, sha1))
>> + die(_("Failed to resolve '%s' as a valid ref."), upstream);
>> + base = lookup_commit_or_die(sha1, "upstream base");
>> + oidcpy(&bases->base_commit, &base->object.oid);
>> + } else {
>> + commit_patch_id(prerequisite_head, &diffopt, sha1);
>> + oidcpy(&bases->parent_commit, &prerequisite_head->object.oid);
>> + hashcpy(bases->parent_patch_id.hash, sha1);
>> + return;
>
>What happens if you did this sequence?
>
> $ git fetch origin
> $ git checkout -b fork origin/master
> $ git fetch origin
> $ git format-patch --base=auto origin..
>
>You grab the updated origin/master as base and use it here, no?
>At that point the topology would look like:
>
> 1---2---3 updated upstream
> /
> 0---X---Y---Z---A---B---C
> ^
> old upstream
>
>so you are basing your worn on "0" (old upstream) but setting base
>to "3"
>
>Wouldn't that trigger "base must be an ancestor of Z" check you had
>in [PATCH 2/4]?Yes, this is flawed, I will follow your below suggestion to compute the merge base as the base commit through upstream and specified range.
> >I also do not see the point of showing "parent id" which as far as I >can see is just a random commit object name and show different >output that is not even described what it is. It would be better to
Here is our consideration: There is high chance that branch_get_upstream will retrun NULL(thus we are not able to get exact base commit), since developers may checkout branch from a local branch or a commit and haven't set "--set-upstream-to" to track a remote branch, in this case, we want to provide likely useful info(here is parent commit id and patch id), based on it, 0day robot still have good chance to find the suitable base. Otherwise, I'm afraid this annotation system won't work effectively in long run.
Thanks, Xiaolong.
Show 16 quoted lines
> > * find the upstream (i.e. 3 in the picture) and then with our range > (i.e. A B and C) compute the merge base (i.e. you would find 0) > and use it as base; > > * if there is no upstream, error out and tell the user that there > is no upstream. The user is intelligent enough and knows what > commit the base should be. > >I suspect, but I didn't think things through. > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html