threads / discuss / 10464

stgit restrictions on patch names

Subject: stgit restrictions on patch names

## tl;dr

3 messages between Oct 25, 2007 and Oct 29, 2007.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Yann Dirson· Oct 25, 2007, 19:48 UTC · lore

Looks like stgit is now more picky on patch names than in used to be:

$ stg branch --clone v2.0.6-debian
Checking for changes in the working directory ... done
Cloning current branch to "v2.0.6-debian" ...
  No log for 01_springelectrical
stg branch: Invalid patch name: "10_g++4.0_build_failures"
$

=> the result of the cloning operation is a partial clone.  Do we want to:

- implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation
will not fail ?  Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found
elsewhere.

- wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ?

- on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ?  I'd vote for this
one, until the previous one gets done.

=> is there any particular reason why we would refuse "+" ?

Karl Hasselström· Oct 26, 2007, 07:29 UTC · re: Yann Dirson · lore

Re: stgit restrictions on patch names

On 2007-10-25 21:48:08 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Do we want to:
>
> - implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation
> will not fail? Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found
> elsewhere.

Duplication is bad. Calling the same verification function more times than necessary is still bad, but maybe not so bad that it wouldn't be OK.

> - wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ?

Yes, this is what we should aim for. I'm working on code that'll eventually give us this if it pans out.

> - on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ? I'd vote for this
> one, until the previous one gets done.

Seems reasonable.

> => is there any particular reason why we would refuse "+" ?

Not that I can think of at the moment, except maybe future-proofing.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle

Catalin Marinas· Oct 29, 2007, 16:14 UTC · re: Yann Dirson · lore

Re: stgit restrictions on patch names

On 25/10/2007, Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> wrote:

> Looks like stgit is now more picky on patch names than in used to be:

It's not that we explicitly disallows "+" but I think I tried to avoid some wrong patch names but was too lazy to create a better regexp.

As a quick fix, we could re-generate a patch name if it is invalid.

Show 10 quoted lines

> => the result of the cloning operation is a partial clone.  Do we want to:
>
> - implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation
> will not fail ?  Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found
> elsewhere.
>
> - wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ?
>
> - on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ?  I'd vote for this
> one, until the previous one gets done.

I think the last one is the simplest to implement, while the second is nicer, I've never found the time to investigate it properly.

-- 
Catalin