Re: [PATCH] disable grafts during fetch/push/bundle
- From
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
- Date
- Mar 6, 2014, 16:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5318A537.4010400@alum.mit.edu>
- In-Reply-To
- <20140306155626.GB18519@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 03/06/2014 04:56 PM, Jeff King wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 09:42:46AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> Replace objects are better than grafts in *almost* every dimension. The >> exception is that it is dead simple to create grafts, whereas I always >> have to break open the man pages to remember how to create a replace >> object that does the same thing. >> >> So I think a helpful step towards deprecating grafts would be to offer a >> couple of convenience features to help people kick the "grafts" habit: > > I agree that better tool support would make "git replace" more pleasant > to use. > >> * A tool that converts grafts (i.e., the grafts read from >> $GIT_DIR/info/grafts) into the equivalent replacements. > > I don't know if this is strictly necessary, if we make your command > below pleasant to use. I.e., it should just be: > > while read sha1 parents; do > git replace --graft $sha1 $parents > done <.git/info/grafts > > We can wrap that in "git replace --convert-grafts", but I do not think > grafts are so common that there would be a big demand for it.
It's probably easier to wrap it than to explain to Windows users what they have to do.
Show 13 quoted lines
>> * A tool that creates a new replacement object that is the equivalent of >> a graft. I.e., it should do, using replace references, the equivalent >> of the following command: >> >> echo SHA1 [PARENT1...] >>$GIT_DIR/info/grafts >> >> These features could be added to "git replace" or could be built into a >> new "git grafts" command. > > I think it would be nice to have a set of "mode" options for > "git-replace" to do basic editing of a sha1 and install the result > (technically you could split the editing into a separate command, but I > do not see the point in editing a sha1 and then _not_ replacing it).
If modifying without replacing is needed, it would be pretty easy to add an option --stdout that writes the SHA1 of the modified object to stdout instead of creating a replace reference. That way what you want 95% of the time is the default but there is still an escape hatch.
Show 13 quoted lines
> Perhaps: > > # pretty-print sha1 based on type, start $EDITOR, create a > # type-appropriate object from the result (e.g., using hash-object, > # mktree, or mktag), and then set up the object as a replacement for > # SHA1 > git replace --edit SHA1 > > # ditto, but replace the $EDITOR step with the parent list > git replace --graft SHA1 PARENT1 PARENT2 > > # ...or remove entries from a tree > git replace --remove-entry SHA1 foo bar
I like this idea a lot, especially the pretty-printer round-tripping.
"git replace" could support some of the options that "git filter-branch" can take, like --env-filter, --msg-filter, etc. (at least if the target is a commit object).
All of this would make it possible to build up the changes that you want to integrate via "filter-branch" piecemeal instead of having to have a single monster filter-branch invocation. For example,
for c in $(git rev-list --all --before=2007-01-01
--author=root@localhost)
do
git replace --env-filter 'export AUTHOR_EMAIL=john@example.com' $c
done
# Make some more changes to other commits...
# And when everything is done and checked:
git filter-branch --all --tag-name-filter=catTo me this is easier to construct than the equivalent filter-branch invocation, and can be faster because its processing can be more easily limited to the commits that need it. Of course to really gain speed, there should be a C program that bakes in replace references by traversing the object tree rather than processing each commit separately, like filter-branch. I predict that this approach would have most of the speed of BFG.
Michael
-- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/