Re: [PATCH v3 07/28] shallow.c: add remove_reachable_shallow_points()
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 26, 2013, 12:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8D+8DFL298_mqUDbp=Hk8b=oiDnWgpw=xf3V02=S0mdYA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes: > >> When we receive a pack and the shallow points from another repository, >> we may want to add more shallow points to current repo to make sure no >> commits point to nowhere. However we do not want to add unnecessary >> shallow points and cut our history short because the other end is a >> shallow version of this repo. The output shallow points may or may not >> be added to .git/shallow, depending on whether they are actually >> reachable in the new pack. >> >> This function filters such shallow points out, leaving ones that might >> potentially be added. A simple has_sha1_file won't do because we may >> have incomplete object islands (i.e. not connected to any refs) and >> the shallow points are on these islands. In that case we want to keep >> the shallow points as candidates until we figure out if the new pack >> connects to such object islands. >> >> Typical cases that use remove_reachable_shallow_points() are: >> >> - fetch from a repo that has longer history: in this case all remote >> shallow roots do not exist in the client repo, this function will >> be cheap as it just does a few lookup_commit_graft and >> has_sha1_file. > > It is unclear why. If you fetched from a repository more complete > than you, you may deepen your history which may allow you to unplug > the shallow points you originally had, and remote "shallow root" (by > the way, lets find a single good phrase to represent this thing and > stick to it) may want to replace them, no?
Except that deepen/shorten history is a different mode that this function is not used at all. I should have made that clear. This and the next patch are about "stick to our base and add something on top"
Any suggestions about a good phase? I've been swinging between "shallow points" (from 4 months ago) and "shallow roots" (recently).
Show 8 quoted lines
>> - fetch from a repo that has exactly the same shallow root set >> (e.g. a clone from a shallow repo): this case may trigger >> in_merge_bases_many all the way to roots. An exception is made to >> avoid such costly path with a faith that .git/shallow does not >> usually points to unreachable commit islands. > > ... and when the faith is broken, you will end up with a broken > repository???
Not really broken because the new ref will be cut at the troublesome shallow root before it goes out of bound, so the user may be surprised that he got a history shorter than he wanted. It's when the root is removed that we have a problem. But commits in .git/shallow are only removed by
1) deepening history 2) the prune patch 28/28
#1 should send the missing objects and insert a new commit to .git/shallow to plug the hole, so we're good. #2 only removes commits from .git/shallow if they are not reachable from any refs, which is no longer true.
Show 12 quoted lines
>> +static int add_ref(const char *refname,
>> + const unsigned char *sha1, int flags, void *cb_data)
>> +{
>> + struct commit_array *ca = cb_data;
>> + ALLOC_GROW(ca->commits, ca->nr + 1, ca->alloc);
>> + ca->commits[ca->nr++] = lookup_commit(sha1);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Can't a ref point at a non-commit-ish? Is the code prepared to deal
> with such an entry (possibly a NULL pointer) in the commit_array
> struct?Eck, yes a ref can. No the code is not :P Thanks for pointing this out. We don't care about non-commit refs, so we just need to filter them out.
-- Duy