# [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options 5 messages from 2008-10-21 to 2008-11-07. Participants: Tuncer Ayaz, Nanako Shiraishi, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/15995 ## Tuncer Ayaz, 2008-10-21 16:30 Subject: [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options Message-ID: <1224606624-5082-1-git-send-email-tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1224606624-5082-1-git-send-email-tuncer.ayaz%40gmail.com ``` After fixing clone -q I noticed that pull -q does not do what it's supposed to do and implemented --quiet/--verbose by adding it to builtin-merge and fixing two places in builtin-fetch. I have not touched/adjusted contrib/completion/git-completion.bash but can take a look if wanted. I think it already needs one or two adjustments caused by recent --OPTIONS changes in master. I've tested the following invocations with the below changes applied: $ git pull $ git pull -q $ git pull -v $ git fetch -q $ git pull -q -v -q Signed-off-by: Tuncer Ayaz --- Documentation/merge-options.txt | 8 ++++++++ builtin-fetch.c | 21 +++++++++++---------- builtin-merge.c | 22 +++++++++++++++------- git-pull.sh | 11 ++++++++--- 4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/merge-options.txt b/Documentation/merge-options.txt index 007909a..427cdef 100644 --- a/Documentation/merge-options.txt +++ b/Documentation/merge-options.txt @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +-q:: +--quiet:: + Operate quietly. + +-v:: +--verbose:: + Be verbose. + --stat:: Show a diffstat at the end of the merge. The diffstat is also controlled by the configuration option merge.stat. diff --git a/builtin-fetch.c b/builtin-fetch.c index ee93d3a..b067512 100644 --- a/builtin-fetch.c +++ b/builtin-fetch.c @@ -22,16 +22,17 @@ enum { TAGS_SET = 2 }; -static int append, force, keep, update_head_ok, verbose, quiet; +static int append, force, keep, update_head_ok; static int tags = TAGS_DEFAULT; static const char *depth; static const char *upload_pack; static struct strbuf default_rla = STRBUF_INIT; static struct transport *transport; +static enum { QUIET, NORMAL, VERBOSE } verbosity = NORMAL; static struct option builtin_fetch_options[] = { - OPT__QUIET(&quiet), - OPT__VERBOSE(&verbose), + OPT_SET_INT('v', "verbose", &verbosity, "be verbose", VERBOSE), + OPT_SET_INT('q', "quiet", &verbosity, "operate quietly", QUIET), OPT_BOOLEAN('a', "append", &append, "append to .git/FETCH_HEAD instead of overwriting"), OPT_STRING(0, "upload-pack", &upload_pack, "PATH", @@ -192,7 +193,6 @@ static int s_update_ref(const char *action, static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref, const char *remote, - int verbose, char *display) { struct commit *current = NULL, *updated; @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref, die("object %s not found", sha1_to_hex(ref->new_sha1)); if (!hashcmp(ref->old_sha1, ref->new_sha1)) { - if (verbose) + if (verbosity == VERBOSE) sprintf(display, "= %-*s %-*s -> %s", SUMMARY_WIDTH, "[up to date]", REFCOL_WIDTH, remote, pretty_ref); @@ -366,18 +366,19 @@ static int store_updated_refs(const char *url, const char *remote_name, note); if (ref) - rc |= update_local_ref(ref, what, verbose, note); + rc |= update_local_ref(ref, what, note); else sprintf(note, "* %-*s %-*s -> FETCH_HEAD", SUMMARY_WIDTH, *kind ? kind : "branch", REFCOL_WIDTH, *what ? what : "HEAD"); if (*note) { - if (!shown_url) { + if (verbosity > QUIET && !shown_url) { fprintf(stderr, "From %.*s\n", url_len, url); shown_url = 1; } - fprintf(stderr, " %s\n", note); + if (verbosity > QUIET) + fprintf(stderr, " %s\n", note); } } fclose(fp); @@ -622,9 +623,9 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) remote = remote_get(argv[0]); transport = transport_get(remote, remote->url[0]); - if (verbose >= 2) + if (verbosity == VERBOSE) transport->verbose = 1; - if (quiet) + if (verbosity == QUIET) transport->verbose = -1; if (upload_pack) set_option(TRANS_OPT_UPLOADPACK, upload_pack); diff --git a/builtin-merge.c b/builtin-merge.c index 5e7910b..76e2890 100644 --- a/builtin-merge.c +++ b/builtin-merge.c @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ static unsigned char head[20], stash[20]; static struct strategy **use_strategies; static size_t use_strategies_nr, use_strategies_alloc; static const char *branch; +static enum { QUIET, NORMAL, VERBOSE } verbosity = NORMAL; static struct strategy all_strategy[] = { { "recursive", DEFAULT_TWOHEAD | NO_TRIVIAL }, @@ -152,6 +153,8 @@ static int option_parse_n(const struct option *opt, } static struct option builtin_merge_options[] = { + OPT_SET_INT('v', "verbose", &verbosity, "be verbose", VERBOSE), + OPT_SET_INT('q', "quiet", &verbosity, "operate quietly", QUIET), { OPTION_CALLBACK, 'n', NULL, NULL, NULL, "do not show a diffstat at the end of the merge", PARSE_OPT_NOARG, option_parse_n }, @@ -250,7 +253,8 @@ static void restore_state(void) /* This is called when no merge was necessary. */ static void finish_up_to_date(const char *msg) { - printf("%s%s\n", squash ? " (nothing to squash)" : "", msg); + if (verbosity > QUIET) + printf("%s%s\n", squash ? " (nothing to squash)" : "", msg); drop_save(); } @@ -331,14 +335,15 @@ static void finish(const unsigned char *new_head, const char *msg) if (!msg) strbuf_addstr(&reflog_message, getenv("GIT_REFLOG_ACTION")); else { - printf("%s\n", msg); + if (verbosity > QUIET) + printf("%s\n", msg); strbuf_addf(&reflog_message, "%s: %s", getenv("GIT_REFLOG_ACTION"), msg); } if (squash) { squash_message(); } else { - if (!merge_msg.len) + if (verbosity > QUIET && !merge_msg.len) printf("No merge message -- not updating HEAD\n"); else { const char *argv_gc_auto[] = { "gc", "--auto", NULL }; @@ -872,6 +877,8 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) argc = parse_options(argc, argv, builtin_merge_options, builtin_merge_usage, 0); + if (verbosity > QUIET) + show_diffstat = 0; if (squash) { if (!allow_fast_forward) @@ -1013,10 +1020,11 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) strcpy(hex, find_unique_abbrev(head, DEFAULT_ABBREV)); - printf("Updating %s..%s\n", - hex, - find_unique_abbrev(remoteheads->item->object.sha1, - DEFAULT_ABBREV)); + if (verbosity > QUIET) + printf("Updating %s..%s\n", + hex, + find_unique_abbrev(remoteheads->item->object.sha1, + DEFAULT_ABBREV)); strbuf_addstr(&msg, "Fast forward"); if (have_message) strbuf_addstr(&msg, diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh index 75c3610..c982d08 100755 --- a/git-pull.sh +++ b/git-pull.sh @@ -16,13 +16,17 @@ cd_to_toplevel test -z "$(git ls-files -u)" || die "You are in the middle of a conflicted merge." -strategy_args= no_stat= no_commit= squash= no_ff= log_arg= +strategy_args= no_stat= no_commit= squash= no_ff= log_arg= verbosity= curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD) curr_branch_short=$(echo "$curr_branch" | sed "s|refs/heads/||") rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase) while : do case "$1" in + -q|--quiet) + verbosity=-q ;; + -v|--verbose) + verbosity=-v ;; -n|--no-stat|--no-summary) no_stat=-n ;; --stat|--summary) @@ -121,7 +125,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && { "refs/remotes/$origin/$reflist" 2>/dev/null)" } orig_head=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD 2>/dev/null) -git fetch --update-head-ok "$@" || exit 1 +git fetch $verbosity --update-head-ok "$@" || exit 1 curr_head=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD 2>/dev/null) if test "$curr_head" != "$orig_head" @@ -181,5 +185,6 @@ merge_name=$(git fmt-merge-msg $log_arg <"$GIT_DIR/FETCH_HEAD") || exit test true = "$rebase" && exec git-rebase $strategy_args --onto $merge_head \ ${oldremoteref:-$merge_head} -exec git-merge $no_stat $no_commit $squash $no_ff $log_arg $strategy_args \ +exec git-merge $verbosity $no_stat $no_commit \ + $squash $no_ff $log_arg $strategy_args \ "$merge_name" HEAD $merge_head -- 1.6.0.2.GIT ``` ## Nanako Shiraishi, 2008-10-27 10:08 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options Message-ID: <20081027190816.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20081027190816.6117%40nanako3.lavabit.com In-Reply-To: <1224606624-5082-1-git-send-email-tuncer.ayaz@gmail.com> ``` Quoting Tuncer Ayaz : > After fixing clone -q I noticed that pull -q does not do what > it's supposed to do and implemented --quiet/--verbose by > adding it to builtin-merge and fixing two places in builtin-fetch. Junio, may I ask what the status of this patch is? Maybe the patch was lost in the noise? The commit log message is written very differently from existing commits in the history of git, and I am thinking that maybe that is why you did not like the whole patch? Or is it lack of any test script? I like what the quiet option to git-pull does, even though I do not care too much about the verbose option myself. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2008-10-28 03:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options Message-ID: <7vprllh0ao.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vprllh0ao.fsf%40gitster.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <20081027190816.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> ``` Nanako Shiraishi writes: > Quoting Tuncer Ayaz : > >> After fixing clone -q I noticed that pull -q does not do what >> it's supposed to do and implemented --quiet/--verbose by >> adding it to builtin-merge and fixing two places in builtin-fetch. > > Junio, may I ask what the status of this patch is? Maybe the patch was lost in the noise? The commit log message is written very differently from existing commits in the history of git, and I am thinking that maybe that is why you did not like the whole patch? Or is it lack of any test script? Well, perhaps you've been with us long enough to get too picky like myself, but this was genuinely lost in the noise and my scrambling to get back to normal. We do not typically say "I did this, I did that", but the first paragraph in Tuncer's message is perfectly fine. I would probably liked the second paragraph better if it were after --- lines (it is more about the possible enhancements in other areas, and does not belong to the commit log message for this change), but it is not a grave enough offence to get the patch rejected. The patch itself looks Ok; the lack of test script additions does indeed bother me somewhat, but it is not too big a deal. P.S. We are having fun at GitTogether'08 in the first half of this week, so please expect slower response than usual. ``` ## Tuncer Ayaz, 2008-11-01 17:23 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options Message-ID: <4ac8254d0811011023r10a4ce45ka962344ceef564f0@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4ac8254d0811011023r10a4ce45ka962344ceef564f0%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7vprllh0ao.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nanako Shiraishi writes: > >> Quoting Tuncer Ayaz : >> >>> After fixing clone -q I noticed that pull -q does not do what >>> it's supposed to do and implemented --quiet/--verbose by >>> adding it to builtin-merge and fixing two places in builtin-fetch. >> >> Junio, may I ask what the status of this patch is? Maybe the patch was >> lost in the noise? The commit log message is written very differently from >> existing commits in the history of git, and I am thinking that maybe that is >> why you did not like the whole patch? Or is it lack of any test script? > > Well, perhaps you've been with us long enough to get too picky like > myself, but this was genuinely lost in the noise and my scrambling to get > back to normal. We do not typically say "I did this, I did that", but the > first paragraph in Tuncer's message is perfectly fine. I would probably > liked the second paragraph better if it were after --- lines (it is more > about the possible enhancements in other areas, and does not belong to the > commit log message for this change), but it is not a grave enough offence > to get the patch rejected. Should I resend the patch with a short and simple commit message like the following? --8<-- Implement git-pull --quiet and --verbose by adding the options to git-pull and fixing verbosity handling in git-fetch. -->8-- > The patch itself looks Ok; the lack of test script additions does indeed > bother me somewhat, but it is not too big a deal. I took a look at t/ and am not quite sure whether I should test -v/-q by analyzing stdout output's length & content. I think testing -q and -v makes more sense on a global and not git-pull or git-fetch level. For that to be possible I envision building common verbosity-based logging functions/macros. I don't like the idea of scanning stdout for length or content as long as we're not sure that all errors and warnings are sent to stderr and stdout is for info and verbose only. > P.S. We are having fun at GitTogether'08 in the first half of this week, > so please expect slower response than usual. ``` ## Tuncer Ayaz, 2008-11-07 03:26 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Teach/Fix pull/fetch -q/-v options Message-ID: <4ac8254d0811061926m32183c2fx69ec5b5f4559e608@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4ac8254d0811061926m32183c2fx69ec5b5f4559e608%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4ac8254d0811011023r10a4ce45ka962344ceef564f0@mail.gmail.com> ``` On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Nanako Shiraishi writes: >> >>> Quoting Tuncer Ayaz : >>> >>>> After fixing clone -q I noticed that pull -q does not do what >>>> it's supposed to do and implemented --quiet/--verbose by >>>> adding it to builtin-merge and fixing two places in builtin-fetch. >>> >>> Junio, may I ask what the status of this patch is? Maybe the patch was >>> lost in the noise? The commit log message is written very differently from >>> existing commits in the history of git, and I am thinking that maybe that is >>> why you did not like the whole patch? Or is it lack of any test script? >> >> Well, perhaps you've been with us long enough to get too picky like >> myself, but this was genuinely lost in the noise and my scrambling to get >> back to normal. We do not typically say "I did this, I did that", but the >> first paragraph in Tuncer's message is perfectly fine. I would probably >> liked the second paragraph better if it were after --- lines (it is more >> about the possible enhancements in other areas, and does not belong to the >> commit log message for this change), but it is not a grave enough offence >> to get the patch rejected. > > Should I resend the patch with a short and simple commit message > like the following? > --8<-- > Implement git-pull --quiet and --verbose by adding the > options to git-pull and fixing verbosity handling in git-fetch. > -->8-- > >> The patch itself looks Ok; the lack of test script additions does indeed >> bother me somewhat, but it is not too big a deal. > > I took a look at t/ and am not quite sure whether I should test -v/-q > by analyzing stdout output's length & content. > > I think testing -q and -v makes more sense on a global and not > git-pull or git-fetch level. For that to be possible I envision building > common verbosity-based logging functions/macros. > > I don't like the idea of scanning stdout for length or content as > long as we're not sure that all errors and warnings are sent > to stderr and stdout is for info and verbose only. > >> P.S. We are having fun at GitTogether'08 in the first half of this week, >> so please expect slower response than usual. > Please see my next patch revision arriving here in a moment. ```