Re: [PATCH v0] fast-import: Add drop command
- From
Dmitry Ivankov <divanorama@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 24, 2011, 21:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CA+gfSn8Z7Xn1hdpqNHiP3bd2KGRqcAc6O683Z4O+G=jNNYJtBA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110924193733.GB10955@elie>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Vitor Antunes wrote: > >> The drop command deletes the given branch reference, allowing >> fast-import to actively ignore it in the final checks. > > Thanks. I must have missed the earlier discussion. What are the > semantics of this command and its intended purpose?
My guess is that if fast-import is used to manage a set of "remote" branches, it should be able to delete branches. Then, it should be allowed to do non-fastforward updates too (--force). Why can't it just ignore branches deletion (considering --force)?
Random thoughts: 1. once 'drop' is executed, fast-import can't tell if the branch was actually deleted. And moreover any attempt to read this branch head becomes illegal (either it's missing in .git or fast-import is instructed to use a dropped branch). 2. 'reset' command is a bit like proposed 'drop' but it never deletes a branch ref. Consider following imports: 1) import branch topic 2) reset topic 3) import branch topic2 starting at topic (incorrect import) If 1-3) is done in one fast-import process, the error is reported. If 3) is done separately, it succeeds but the result is strange: topic2 isn't started from scratch but from old "erased" topic. So, maybe, reset should be fixed to erase branches on --force.
One more scenario is: 1) import topic 2) reset topic 3) import topic If 1-3) go together - no error If 3) goes separate - no error, but non-fastforward update. Much more harmless, but still may look strange.
> For example, what > happens if the branch already existed or if there is a checkpoint > (perhaps triggered by the impatient user sending SIGUSR1 to > fast-import) before the "drop" command is processed?
I think that actual ref deletion should take place in update_branch(). So all the cases would be handled as usual.
> Jonathan >