RE: [BUG] Git fast-export with import marks file omits merge commits
- From
- Isaac Chou <isaac.chou@microfocus.com>
- Date
- Apr 20, 2018, 13:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <MW2PR18MB228432C95C18DE786957DE70E5B40@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAN0heSo9bdvNNzwX5-7nHXxg9_oZrsDixzwQmx6gnEtwny2NOA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Martin,
No problem. I was thinking of the peek/pop pattern as well. :) If you don't mind, can you please go ahead and submit a patch for this? Thanks so much.
Isaac
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Ågren [mailto:martin.agren@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:08 AM To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Cc: Isaac Chou <Isaac.Chou@microfocus.com>; Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>; Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>; git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] Git fast-export with import marks file omits merge commits
On 20 April 2018 at 00:48, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 56 quoted lines
> Isaac Chou <Isaac.Chou@microfocus.com> writes:
>
>> I inspected the source code (builtin/fast-export.c) for the
>> fast-export issue I encountered, and it looks like the merge commit
>> is discarded too early by the call to object_array_pop() after only
>> one of the two UNSHOWN parents is processed in the method
>> handle_tail(). The poped merge commit still has one UNSHOWN parent,
>> therefore it is not processed and is lost in the output. Can someone
>> advise me on how to submit a code change or bug report in order to
>> get the fix into the code base?
>
> There indeed are some differences between v2.14 and v2.15 around the
> code that returns early when has_unshown_parent() says "yes" [*1*],
> but the decision to return early when the function says "yes" hasn't
> changed between that timeperiod---it dates back to f2dc849e ("Add 'git
> fast-export', the sister of 'git fast-import'", 2007-12-02), i.e. the
> very beginning of the program's life.
>
> I'll CC those who wrote the original and b3e8ca89 ("fast-export: do
> not copy from modified file", 2017-09-20) and 71992039
> ("object_array: add and use `object_array_pop()`", 2017-09-23), which
> are the only two commits that touch the surrounding area during that
> timeperiod, to ask if something jumps at them.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> [Footnotes]
>
> *1* An excerpt from 'git diff v2.14.0 v2.15.0 builtin/fast-export.c'
> reads like so:
>
> diff --git a/builtin/fast-export.c b/builtin/fast-export.c index
> d412c0a8f3..2fb60d6d48 100644
> --- a/builtin/fast-export.c
> +++ b/builtin/fast-export.c
> ...
> @@ -630,15 +645,15 @@ static void *anonymize_tag(const void *old, size_t *len)
> return strbuf_detach(&out, len); }
>
> -static void handle_tail(struct object_array *commits, struct rev_info
> *revs)
> +static void handle_tail(struct object_array *commits, struct rev_info *revs,
> + struct string_list *paths_of_changed_objects)
> {
> struct commit *commit;
> while (commits->nr) {
> - commit = (struct commit *)commits->objects[commits->nr - 1].item;
> + commit = (struct commit *)object_array_pop(commits);
> if (has_unshown_parent(commit))
> return;
> - handle_commit(commit, revs);
> - commits->nr--;
> + handle_commit(commit, revs, paths_of_changed_objects);
> }
> }Indeed. This looks wrong and the guilty person would be me.
If my 71992039 ("object_array: add and use `object_array_pop()`", 2017-09-23) would instead have done something like s/commits->nr--/(void)object_array_pop(commits)/ it would not have screwed up as much. It could also use a peek+pop-pattern.
Isaac, are you up for submitting a patch? Just let me know if you encounter any issues. Otherwise, I can submit a patch shortly since I was the one who dropped the ball originally.
Thanks for diagnosing this.
Martin