Re: [PATCH 1/3] t9350: point out that refs are not updated correctly

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2012, 06:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2bNZLiyinu3wgmw4gaRM9XUvA857-8fOGebhKYFmDesw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121025055343.GA13729@elie.Belkin>

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> All right, so I run this and get this:
>>
>> % git fast-export master..master
>> reset refs/heads/master
>> from 8c7a786b6c8eae8eac91083cdc9a6e337bc133b0
>>
>> As an user of fast-export, what do I do with that now?
>
> You passed "master.." on the command line, indicating that your
> repository already has commit 8c7a786b6c8eae8eac91083cdc9a6e337bc133b0.

No I didn't.

Maybe I'm not interested in all the old history and I just want to create a repository from that point forward. For example 'git fast-export v1.5.0..master. I don't want no references to objects I don't have, there's no way I can do anything sensible with that SHA-1.

% git fast-export master..master | git --git-dir=/tmp/git/.git fast-import fatal: Not a valid commit: 8c7a786b6c8eae8eac91083cdc9a6e337bc133b0 fast-import: dumping crash report to /tmp/git/.git/fast_import_crash_32498

Does it make sense to you that the output of fast-export doesn't work with fast-import?

> Now you can update the "master" branch to point to that commit,
> as the fast-export output indicates.

I don't have that commit, I don't even know what 8c7a786 means.

Show me a single remote helper that manually stores SHA-1's and I might believe you, but I doubt that, marks are too convenient. Or show me a script. I doubt there will be any, because otherwise somebody would have pushed for this patch, and there doesn't seem to be too many people.

But fine, lets assume it's a valid use-case and people need this... it still has absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of the patch series. The series is in fact doing two things:

1) Use SHA-1's when a mark can't be found
2) Update refs that have been already visited (through marks)

These two things are orthogonal to each other, we should have two tests, and in fact, two separate patch series. One will be useful for remote helpers, the other one will be useful to nobody IMO, but that's something that can be discussed there, and I particularly don't care.

My test and my patch are good for 2), and so far I haven't seen anybody saying otherwise.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras