Re: [PATCH 9/9] builtin/refs: new command to migrate ref storage formats
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- May 24, 2024, 07:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ZlBDWYwFBeVSuM4_@tanuki>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cScGc2p2=FiqscY3eHfW9LHRiyk8DtycQ8H_=Ko=oVoXA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 01:40:50PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 34 quoted lines
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 4:26 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote: > > Introduce a new command that allows the user to migrate a repository > > between ref storage formats. This new command is implemented as part of > > a new git-refs(1) executable. This is due to two reasons: > > > > - There is no good place to put the migration logic in existing > > commands. git-maintenance(1) felt unwieldy, and git-pack-refs(1) is > > not the correct place to put it, either. > > > > - I had it in my mind to create a new low-level command for accessing > > refs for quite a while already. git-refs(1) is that command and can > > over time grow more functionality relating to refs. This should help > > discoverability by consolidating low-level access to refs into a > > single executable. > > > > As mentioned in the preceding commit that introduces the ref storage > > format migration logic, the new `git refs migrate` command still has a > > bunch of restrictions. These restrictions are documented accordingly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > > --- > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-refs.txt b/Documentation/git-refs.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > > +--dry-run:: > > + Perform the migration, but do not modify the repository. The migrated > > + refs will be written into a separate directory that can be inspected > > + separately. This can be used to double check that the migration works > > + as expected before doing performing the actual migration. > > s/doing performing/performing/ > > The mysterious "into a separate directory" is never made concrete. Can > this provide more information so the reader can know where this > directory is and how to double-check that it worked "as expected"?
Good point. I'll add a sentence that "The name of the directory will be reported on stdout". As we use a temporary directory name we cannot mention a static name here.
Patrick