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

Re: [GSoC] Proposal Discussion: git-refs Project

From
Yuting Zheng <05zyt30@gmail.com>
Date
Mar 27, 2025, 02:26 UTC
Message-ID
<D8QOYSD6NLCS.OVF4RKHUCX0A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<Z-FJ3EQdFIkQgtkR@pks.im>
Thanks for your reply!

I have reviewed the changelog and noted that Git version 2.23 introduced similar work through the addition of the git-switch and git-restore commands, which replace some legacy commands and incorporate various functional modifications.

After examining the updates, I have summarized the proposed work as follows and would appreciate confirmation on whether these tasks are to be included in the current project:

1. Code Modifications for Command Implementation:
- Implementation of new commands.
- Necessary modifications to existing commands to support these changes.
2. Test Modifications:
- Addition of tests for the new features (including help tests, basic
functionality tests, and extended feature tests).
- Updating tests for old commands to execute tests on the new commands
(for example, changing the command in git-checkout tests to git-restore).
3. Documentation Updates:
- Creating documentation for the new commands.
Updating and unifying existing documentation (including git.txt,
git-cli.txt, and git-commit.txt).
Additionally, I have a few points that require further discussion:
1. Command Migration:

Upon reviewing the commands slated for replacement (e.g., git-update-ref(1), git-for-each-ref(1), git-show-ref(1), git-pack-refs(1), and git-symbolic-ref), it seems that migrating their functionality into a subcommand of git-refs could be sufficient. Could you please confirm if this approach meets our project requirements without introducing additional functionality?

2. Function Call Integration:

Regarding migration, is it acceptable to directly invoke the legacy command functions by passing parameters from the new command functions?

3. Test Retention:

Lastly, should we retain the original tests for the legacy commands, or should they be fully replaced with tests for the new implementations?

I appreciate your guidance and look forward to your feedback on these points.

Best regards, Zheng Yuting

Previous: Patrick SteinhardtNext: shejialuo
Message 3 of 17 in “[GSoC] Proposal Discussion: git-refs Project”
  1. Yuting ZhengMar 23, 2025
  2. Patrick SteinhardtMar 24, 2025
  3. Yuting ZhengMar 27, 2025
  4. shejialuoMar 28, 2025
  5. Yuting ZhengMar 29, 2025
  6. [GSoC] git-refs proposal draftZheng Yuting, Mar 29, 2025
  7. Patrick SteinhardtMar 31, 2025
  8. Yuting ZhengApr 1, 2025
  9. Patrick SteinhardtApr 2, 2025
  10. Discussion on git-refs list Implementation and Possible ApproachesZheng Yuting, Apr 3, 2025
  11. Karthik NayakApr 4, 2025
  12. Yuting ZhengApr 4, 2025
  13. Patrick SteinhardtApr 4, 2025
  14. Yuting ZhengApr 4, 2025
  15. Yuting ZhengApr 4, 2025
  16. [GSoC] git-refs proposal v2Yuting Zheng, Apr 6, 2025
  17. Fwd: Discussion on git-refs list Implementation and Possible ApproachesYuting Zheng, Apr 4, 2025

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.