git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] remote: handle negative refspecs in git remote show

From
Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date
Jun 16, 2022, 22:09 UTC
Message-ID
<CA+P7+xrx-Cec0mUJvDtWn0Fxu5vLdVkTbteWKiZyouH=64pWvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqletwqnse.fsf@gitster.g>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 2:52 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
>
> Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> This is somewhat curious.  Do we really need to destroy the
> >> fetch_map like the above?  I know by removing skipped items from the
> >> list, the existing loop (below) can stop having to worry about them,
> >> but the caller of get_ref_states() may later want to iterate over
> >> the full fetch_map for other reasons (even if the current one does
> >> not, a future version of the caller may have a reason to do so that
> >> we do not know right now yet).
> >>
> >
> > Good point. I'll fix this. I think we can just move the
> > omit_name_by_refspec into the other loop.
> >
> >> > +
> >> >       for (ref = fetch_map; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> >> >               if (!ref->peer_ref || !ref_exists(ref->peer_ref->name))
> >> >                       string_list_append(&states->new_refs, abbrev_branch(ref->name));
> >>
> >> IOW, is adding a new condition to this existing loop insufficient?
> >>
> >
> > The tricky part here is that we don't have a simple check, and we're
> > currently iterating over all of the refspecs each time. But we have to
> > do that regardless so I think this makes sense. Will fix.
>
> Another thing that worries me is that get_stale_heads() will not see
> the filtered refs with your original implementation, because you cull
> them from the fetch_map in the extra loop upfront.
>
I think the new implementation fixed this, but I'll see about adding a test!
Show 6 quoted lines
> I do not know offhand what its effect would be, but it probably is
> worth testing.  In your original scenario, if we locally have
> refs/remotes/jdk19/old and refs/remotes/jdk19/pr/1 (perhaps obtained
> before we configured ^refs/pr/* negative refspec), we'd want to see
> that pr/1 exists here but will not be updated.
>
Yea, I will see if I can check that.
Show 12 quoted lines
>   * remote jdk19
>     Fetch URL: git@github.com:openjdk/jdk19.git
>     Push  URL: git@github.com:openjdk/jdk19.git
>     HEAD branch: master
>     Remote branches:
>       master tracked
>       old    stale
>       pr/1   stale
>       pr/2   skipped
>       pr/3   skipped
>     Local ref configured for 'git push':
>       master pushes to master (fast-forwardable)
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Jacob Keller
Message 10 of 11 in “remote: handle negative refspecs in git remote show”
  1. remote: handle negative refspecs in git remote showJacob Keller, Jun 14, 2022
  2. Taylor BlauJun 14, 2022
  3. Jacob KellerJun 14, 2022
  4. Taylor BlauJun 14, 2022
  5. Jacob KellerJun 16, 2022
  6. Jacob KellerJun 14, 2022
  7. Junio C HamanoJun 15, 2022
  8. Jacob KellerJun 16, 2022
  9. Junio C HamanoJun 16, 2022
  10. Jacob KellerJun 16, 2022
  11. Jacob KellerJun 16, 2022

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.