Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] apply: reload .gitattributes after patching it
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- Aug 20, 2019, 02:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20190820024505.GH365197@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <9b940950-666a-0c4c-58c0-1e61ac9e654c@gmail.com>
On 2019-08-19 at 09:41:42, Phillip Wood wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Hi Brian > > On 18/08/2019 19:44, brian m. carlson wrote: > > When applying multiple patches with git am, or when rebasing using the > > am backend, it's possible that one of our patches has updated a > > gitattributes file. Currently, we cache this information, so if a > > file in a subsequent patch has attributes applied, the file will be > > written out with the attributes in place as of the time we started the > > rebase or am operation, not with the attributes applied by the previous > > patch. This problem does not occur when using the -m or -i flags to > > rebase. > > Do you know why -m and -i aren't affected?
I had to look, but I believe the answer is because they use the sequencer, and the sequencer calls git merge-recursive as a separate process, and so the writing of the tree is only done in a subprocess, which can't persist state.
Should we move the merge-recursive code into the main process, we'll likely have the same problem there.
Show 21 quoted lines
> > diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c > > index cde95369bb..d57bc635e4 100644 > > --- a/apply.c > > +++ b/apply.c > > @@ -4643,6 +4643,7 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, > > struct patch *list = NULL, **listp = &list; > > int skipped_patch = 0; > > int res = 0; > > + int flush_attributes = 0; > > state->patch_input_file = filename; > > if (read_patch_file(&buf, fd) < 0) > > @@ -4670,6 +4671,10 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, > > patch_stats(state, patch); > > *listp = patch; > > listp = &patch->next; > > + > > + if ((patch->new_name && ends_with_path_components(patch->new_name, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE)) || > > + (patch->old_name && ends_with_path_components(patch->old_name, GITATTRIBUTES_FILE))) > > + flush_attributes = 1; > > style nit - these lines are very long compared to 80 characters
They are. They aren't two different from other lines in the file, and I thought that leaving them that way would preserve the similarities, but I can also wrap them. I'll send out a v5 with wrapped lines.
Show 22 quoted lines
> > diff --git a/convert.c b/convert.c
> > index 94ff837649..030e9b81b9 100644
> > --- a/convert.c
> > +++ b/convert.c
> > @@ -1293,10 +1293,11 @@ struct conv_attrs {
> > const char *working_tree_encoding; /* Supported encoding or default encoding if NULL */
> > };
> > +static struct attr_check *check;
>
> I was concerned about the impact adding a file global if we ever want to
> multi-thread this for submodules, but looking through the file there are a
> couple of others already so this isn't creating a new problem.
> > +
> > static void convert_attrs(const struct index_state *istate,
> > struct conv_attrs *ca, const char *path)
> > {
> > - static struct attr_check *check;
> > struct attr_check_item *ccheck = NULL;
> > if (!check) {
> > @@ -1339,6 +1340,12 @@ static void convert_attrs(const struct index_state *istate,
> > ca->crlf_action = CRLF_AUTO_INPUT;
> > }The portion I've included above demonstrates that this was already a static variable, just one hidden in a function. So yeah, this is no worse than it already was.
-- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204