# git-rev-list and git-format-patch script oddness 9 messages from 2005-09-11 to 2005-09-12. Participants: Martin Langhoff, Johannes Schindelin, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1765 ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-11 08:52 Subject: git-rev-list and git-format-patch script oddness Message-ID: <46a038f905091101529e045af@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f905091101529e045af%40mail.gmail.com ``` When I run git-format-patch, it insists on outputting merges that have already been merged upstream, regardless of the fact that git-merge-base knows better. Is there a way to get it to skip merged-in patches that git already has detected as merged upstream? cheers, martin ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2005-09-11 09:20 Subject: Re: git-rev-list and git-format-patch script oddness Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0509111120020.32244%40wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: <46a038f905091101529e045af@mail.gmail.com> ``` Hi, On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Martin Langhoff wrote: > When I run git-format-patch, it insists on outputting merges that have > already been merged upstream, regardless of the fact that > git-merge-base knows better. > > Is there a way to get it to skip merged-in patches that git already > has detected as merged upstream? I always use something like git-format-patch HEAD ^origin Hth, Dscho ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-11 20:32 Subject: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <7voe6zqr9y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7voe6zqr9y.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <46a038f905091101529e045af@mail.gmail.com> ``` This switches the logic to pick which commits to include in the output from git-rev-list to git-cherry; as a side effect, 'format-patch ^up mine' would stop working, although up..mine would continue to work. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Martin Langhoff writes: > When I run git-format-patch, it insists on outputting merges that have > already been merged upstream, regardless of the fact that > git-merge-base knows better. > > Is there a way to get it to skip merged-in patches that git already > has detected as merged upstream? > > cheers, > > martin This is what the format-patch should have been from the beginning, although for hysterical raisins it was not the case (it predates git-cherry). One thing I am reluctant about this is it breaks the exact example Johannes just posted. git-format-patch.sh | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) 9798f6dad84c9c3e39ed05c91d8e97fe4abc9222 diff --git a/git-format-patch.sh b/git-format-patch.sh --- a/git-format-patch.sh +++ b/git-format-patch.sh @@ -27,8 +27,6 @@ with applymbox. } diff_opts= -IFS=' -' LF=' ' @@ -61,7 +59,10 @@ do --output-directo|--output-director|--output-directory) case "$#" in 1) usage ;; esac; shift outdir="$1" ;; - -*) diff_opts="$diff_opts$LF$1" ;; + -*' '* | -*"$LF"* | -*' '*) + # Ignore diff option that has whitespace for now. + ;; + -*) diff_opts="$diff_opts$1 " ;; *) break ;; esac shift @@ -72,16 +73,20 @@ tt) die '--keep-subject and --numbered are incompatible.' ;; esac -revpair= +rev1= rev2= case "$#" in 2) - revpair="$1..$2" ;; + rev1="$1" rev2="$2" ;; 1) case "$1" in *..*) - revpair="$1";; + rev1=`expr "$1" : '\(.*\)\.\.'` + rev2=`expr "$1" : '.*\.\.\(.*\)'` + ;; *) - revpair="$1..HEAD";; + rev1="$1" + rev2="HEAD" + ;; esac ;; *) usage ;; @@ -127,10 +132,21 @@ _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0 _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40" stripCommitHead='/^'"$_x40"' (from '"$_x40"')$/d' -git-rev-list --no-merges --merge-order \ - $(git-rev-parse --revs-only "$revpair") >$series +git-cherry -v "$rev1" "$rev2" | +while read sign rev comment +do + case "$sign" in + '-') + echo >&2 "Merged already: $comment" + ;; + *) + echo $rev + ;; + esac +done >$series + total=`wc -l <$series | tr -dc "[0-9]"` -i=$total +i=1 while read commit do git-cat-file commit "$commit" | git-stripspace >$commsg @@ -145,7 +161,7 @@ do esac file=`printf '%04d-%stxt' $i "$title"` - i=`expr "$i" - 1` + i=`expr "$i" + 1` echo "* $file" { mailScript=' ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-11 21:08 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <46a038f90509111408f9479e2@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f90509111408f9479e2%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7voe6zqr9y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` > git-cherry). One thing I am reluctant about this is it breaks the > exact example Johannes just posted. Well, Johannes example didn't work at all for me. Output was empty, when I was expecting 4~6 entries. cheers, martin ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-11 21:10 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <46a038f905091114106e6e7943@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f905091114106e6e7943%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7voe6zqr9y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On 9/12/05, Junio C Hamano wrote: > This switches the logic to pick which commits to include in the output > from git-rev-list to git-cherry; as a side effect, 'format-patch ^up mine' > would stop working, although up..mine would continue to work. Also -- forgot to say thanks for this. I'm interested in porting this to cg-log as an option. BTW, anyone heard of Baudis lately? cheers, martin ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-12 07:24 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <46a038f905091200245f6330d9@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f905091200245f6330d9%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7voe6zqr9y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On 9/12/05, Junio C Hamano wrote: > This switches the logic to pick which commits to include in the output > from git-rev-list to git-cherry; as a side effect, 'format-patch ^up mine' > would stop working, although up..mine would continue to work. > Hmmm - git-format-patch is now broken. Not sure if it's been this particular commit or a change in git-rev-list. The bottom line is that it will only create patches for my commits since the last merge. This is broken when I work for a few days, merging often from my upstream. At the end of the dev cycle, I want to generate the patchbomb for upstream, and it only gives me the commits since the last merge-in of upstream. OTOH, git-log-script is doing the same since I've updated today. Yesterday, both commands were behaving themselves... cheers, martin ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-12 09:34 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <46a038f905091202343306846@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f905091202343306846%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <46a038f905091200245f6330d9@mail.gmail.com> ``` > Hmmm - git-format-patch is now broken. Strike that. PEBCAK: my branch entry was pointing to the wrong place. Sorry. martin ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-12 11:48 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <7voe6yik0o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7voe6yik0o.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <46a038f905091202343306846@mail.gmail.com> ``` Martin Langhoff writes: > Strike that. PEBCAK: my branch entry was pointing to the wrong place. Sorry. Thanks for quick correction. Just from a curiosity, do you run GIT from the proposed updates branch? I am asking because that suspect git-format-patch change is supposed to be only in there. I am somewhat seriously curious. How many of you on the list regularly look at what is in the proposed updates, and how many of you actually run it? ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2005-09-12 12:03 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Omit patches that have already been merged from format-patch output. Message-ID: <46a038f9050912050367418617@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f9050912050367418617%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7voe6yik0o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On 9/12/05, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Martin Langhoff writes: > > > Strike that. PEBCAK: my branch entry was pointing to the wrong place. Sorry. > > Thanks for quick correction. Just from a curiosity, do you run > GIT from the proposed updates branch? I am asking because that > suspect git-format-patch change is supposed to be only in there. I'm running git on ~5 different machines. On the box where I do my development, I have both 'master' and 'pu' checkouts, but mostly master. Elsewhere, I track master, with updates every few days, when my gut feeling is that things aren't too risky. On the servers (add ~4 servers to the list), I deploy only tagged versions, usually from the Debian package. And it was a total PEBCAK. I had just pulled in your latest merges to master and built/installed on a dev box, things were looking odd and I jumped the gun badly. As you point out, I didn't even have the patch in. cheers, martin ```