threads / patch / 34136

patch, 2 partsRebasing pull with autostash

Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Rebasing pull with autostash

## tl;dr

14 messages between Jun 14, 2013 and Jun 14, 2013. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 13people: 5as markdown or json

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 08:56 UTC · lore

It's trivial to support the feature :)

Ramkumar Ramachandra (2):
  pull: respect rebase.autostash
  pull: clarify the large && { ... } form

 git-pull.sh     |  7 +++++--
 t/t5520-pull.sh | 11 +++++++++++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.3.1.379.gb74074e.dirty

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 08:56 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

[PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

If a rebasing pull is requested, pull unconditionally runs require_clean_worktree() resulting in:

  # dirty worktree or index
  $ git pull
  Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
  Please commit or stash them.

It does this to inform the user early on that a rebase cannot be run on a dirty worktree, and that a stash is required. However, rr/rebase-autostash lifts this limitation on rebase by providing a way to automatically stash using the rebase.autostash configuration variable. Read this variable in pull, and take advantage of this feature.

Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
---
 git-pull.sh     |  2 ++
 t/t5520-pull.sh | 11 +++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

Show changes to 2 files +13 −0

git-pull.sh, t/t5520-pull.sh

diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
index 638aabb..fb01763 100755
--- a/git-pull.sh
+++ b/git-pull.sh
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ merge_args= edit=
 curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD)
 curr_branch_short="${curr_branch#refs/heads/}"
 rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase)
+autostash=$(git config --bool rebase.autostash)
 if test -z "$rebase"
 then
 	rebase=$(git config --bool pull.rebase)
@@ -203,6 +204,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
 			die "$(gettext "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index")"
 		fi
 	else
+		test true = "$autostash" ||
 		require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them."
 	fi
 	oldremoteref= &&
diff --git a/t/t5520-pull.sh b/t/t5520-pull.sh
index 6af6c63..08afd25 100755
--- a/t/t5520-pull.sh
+++ b/t/t5520-pull.sh
@@ -102,6 +102,17 @@ test_expect_success 'pull.rebase' '
 	test new = $(git show HEAD:file2)
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'pull --rebase respects rebase.autostash' '
+	git reset --hard before-rebase &&
+	test_config pull.rebase true &&
+	test_config rebase.autostash true &&
+	echo dirty >>file2
+	git pull . copy &&
+	test $(git rev-parse HEAD^) = $(git rev-parse copy) &&
+	test new = $(git show HEAD:file2) &&
+	grep dirty file2
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'branch.to-rebase.rebase' '
 	git reset --hard before-rebase &&
 	test_config branch.to-rebase.rebase true &&

-- 
1.8.3.1.379.gb74074e.dirty

Matthieu Moy· Jun 14, 2013, 09:13 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> --- a/git-pull.sh
> +++ b/git-pull.sh
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ merge_args= edit=
>  curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD)
>  curr_branch_short="${curr_branch#refs/heads/}"
>  rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase)
> +autostash=$(git config --bool rebase.autostash)
>  if test -z "$rebase"
>  then
>  	rebase=$(git config --bool pull.rebase)
> @@ -203,6 +204,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
>  			die "$(gettext "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index")"
>  		fi
>  	else
> +		test true = "$autostash" ||
>  		require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them."

Trivial, indeed!

It would be nice to have an --autostash command-line option too, and the error message in "require_clean_work_tree" could suggest using it. That would make the feature easily discoverable.

Perhaps this patch could mention "pull --rebase" in the doc, like (config.txt)

- 	ends.  This means that you can run rebase on a dirty worktree.
+ 	ends.  This means that you can run rebase or `git pull --rebase` on a dirty worktree.

(or perhaps it's obvious enough and not needed)

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 10:41 UTC · re: Matthieu Moy · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

Matthieu Moy wrote:

> It would be nice to have an --autostash command-line option too,

I thought it would be a bit ugly, since it's already overloaded with options to pass to merge.

> and the
> error message in "require_clean_work_tree" could suggest using it. That
> would make the feature easily discoverable.

Cannot pull with rebase: You have unstaged changes. Please commit or stash them. See also: rebase.autostash in git-config(1).

> Perhaps this patch could mention "pull --rebase" in the doc, like (config.txt)

Show changes to Documentation/git-pull.txt +2 −1

--- a/Documentation/git-pull.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-pull.txt
@@ -112,5 +112,6 @@ include::merge-options.txt[]
 See `pull.rebase`, `branch.<name>.rebase` and `branch.autosetuprebase` in
 linkgit:git-config[1] if you want to make `git pull` always use
-`--rebase` instead of merging.
+`--rebase` instead of merging.  See `rebase.autostash` in
+linkgit:git-config[1] if you want to be able to run on a dirty worktree.
 +

Thanks.

Phil Hord· Jun 14, 2013, 11:59 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> It would be nice to have an --autostash command-line option too,
>
> I thought it would be a bit ugly, since it's already overloaded with
> options to pass to merge.

Eventually I think a switch will be needed.  At least there is
   git -c rebase.autostash=false

But we will probably need to also have --no-autostash for scripts and users.

Phil

Junio C Hamano· Jun 14, 2013, 18:26 UTC · re: Matthieu Moy · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/git-pull.sh
>> +++ b/git-pull.sh
>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ merge_args= edit=
>>  curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD)
>>  curr_branch_short="${curr_branch#refs/heads/}"
>>  rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase)
>> +autostash=$(git config --bool rebase.autostash)
>>  if test -z "$rebase"
>>  then
>>  	rebase=$(git config --bool pull.rebase)
>> @@ -203,6 +204,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
>>  			die "$(gettext "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index")"
>>  		fi
>>  	else
>> +		test true = "$autostash" ||
>>  		require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them."
>
> Trivial, indeed!
>
> It would be nice to have an --autostash command-line option too, and the
> error message in "require_clean_work_tree" could suggest using it. That
> would make the feature easily discoverable.

I would actually suggest doing this the other way around. --autostash option, followed by configuration if needed.

I actually have this slight suspicion that rebase.autostash and pull.autostash may want to be separate variables. Attempting to rebase locally when your working tree is in half-baked state is bad enough but may be warranted in some workflows, but doing so when integrating with other people's work is a practice in a different league. It would be quite sensible for somebody to want to allow the former (i.e. allows autostash with rebase.autostash=true for local rebase) while retaining the safety of the latter (i.e. stop pulling with pull.autostash=false).

Show 6 quoted lines

> Perhaps this patch could mention "pull --rebase" in the doc, like (config.txt)
>
> - 	ends.  This means that you can run rebase on a dirty worktree.
> + 	ends.  This means that you can run rebase or `git pull --rebase` on a dirty worktree.
>
> (or perhaps it's obvious enough and not needed)

Phil Hord· Jun 14, 2013, 12:12 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> If a rebasing pull is requested, pull unconditionally runs
> require_clean_worktree() resulting in:
>
>   # dirty worktree or index
>   $ git pull
>   Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
>   Please commit or stash them.
>
> It does this to inform the user early on that a rebase cannot be run on
> a dirty worktree, and that a stash is required.  However,
> rr/rebase-autostash lifts this limitation on rebase by providing a way
> to automatically stash using the rebase.autostash configuration
> variable.  Read this variable in pull, and take advantage of this
> feature.

This commit message does not tell me what this commit does. It mostly describes the current situation. Then it refers to something called "rr/rebase-autostash" which will lose meaning in the future when this commit is no longer current on the list. A better way to refer to this commit is to say "this commit". However, even this is not the norm for this project. The norm here is to avoid such noise by speaking in the imperative mood. That is, do not tell me what this commit does; instead, tell the code what to do. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches:

  Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
  instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
  to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
  its behaviour.  Try to make sure your explanation can be understood
  without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list
  archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.

Show 26 quoted lines

>
> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
> ---
>  git-pull.sh     |  2 ++
>  t/t5520-pull.sh | 11 +++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
> index 638aabb..fb01763 100755
> --- a/git-pull.sh
> +++ b/git-pull.sh
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ merge_args= edit=
>  curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD)
>  curr_branch_short="${curr_branch#refs/heads/}"
>  rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase)
> +autostash=$(git config --bool rebase.autostash)
>  if test -z "$rebase"
>  then
>         rebase=$(git config --bool pull.rebase)
> @@ -203,6 +204,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
>                         die "$(gettext "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index")"
>                 fi
>         else
> +               test true = "$autostash" ||
>                 require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them."
>         fi

This commit does not seem useful on its own.  All it does is prevent
the safety check for a clean work tree when the autostash flag is set.
 I understand that this is necessary for the rest of the change to be
useful, but I do not see any reason for it to be split into two
commits like this.  I think it would be more understandable if this
were squashed together with the rest of the change, both now for
reviews and in the future when someone tries to understand this change
in retrospect.

In particular, the commit message suggests that this commit will perform the autostash if this variable is set, but it does not do that yet. I think if you squash these two together it will be more concise and understandable.

Thanks, Phil

Phil Hord· Jun 14, 2013, 12:21 UTC · re: Phil Hord · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 79 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If a rebasing pull is requested, pull unconditionally runs
>> require_clean_worktree() resulting in:
>>
>>   # dirty worktree or index
>>   $ git pull
>>   Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
>>   Please commit or stash them.
>>
>> It does this to inform the user early on that a rebase cannot be run on
>> a dirty worktree, and that a stash is required.  However,
>> rr/rebase-autostash lifts this limitation on rebase by providing a way
>> to automatically stash using the rebase.autostash configuration
>> variable.  Read this variable in pull, and take advantage of this
>> feature.
>
> This commit message does not tell me what this commit does.  It mostly
> describes the current situation.  Then it refers to something called
> "rr/rebase-autostash" which will lose meaning in the future when this
> commit is no longer current on the list.  A better way to refer to
> this commit is to say "this commit".  However, even this is not the
> norm for this project.  The norm here is to avoid such noise by
> speaking in the imperative mood.  That is, do not tell me what this
> commit does; instead, tell the code what to do.  See
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
>
>   Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>   instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>   to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>   its behaviour.  Try to make sure your explanation can be understood
>   without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list
>   archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.
>
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  git-pull.sh     |  2 ++
>>  t/t5520-pull.sh | 11 +++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
>> index 638aabb..fb01763 100755
>> --- a/git-pull.sh
>> +++ b/git-pull.sh
>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ merge_args= edit=
>>  curr_branch=$(git symbolic-ref -q HEAD)
>>  curr_branch_short="${curr_branch#refs/heads/}"
>>  rebase=$(git config --bool branch.$curr_branch_short.rebase)
>> +autostash=$(git config --bool rebase.autostash)
>>  if test -z "$rebase"
>>  then
>>         rebase=$(git config --bool pull.rebase)
>> @@ -203,6 +204,7 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
>>                         die "$(gettext "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index")"
>>                 fi
>>         else
>> +               test true = "$autostash" ||
>>                 require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them."
>>         fi
>
> This commit does not seem useful on its own.  All it does is prevent
> the safety check for a clean work tree when the autostash flag is set.
>  I understand that this is necessary for the rest of the change to be
> useful, but I do not see any reason for it to be split into two
> commits like this.  I think it would be more understandable if this
> were squashed together with the rest of the change, both now for
> reviews and in the future when someone tries to understand this change
> in retrospect.
>
> In particular, the commit message suggests that this commit will
> perform the autostash if this variable is set, but it does not do that
> yet.  I think if you squash these two together it will be more concise
> and understandable.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil

Having said all that, I see now that 2/2 in this series is really unrelated to this commit and is not the rest of the autostash implementation, so I am more confused than before. Was the rest of 'autostash' already implemented in some other series? I guess that's what you meant by "rr/rebase-autostash" which is NOT "this commit" after all. I am sorry for my confusion, though a clearer commit message would have helped me in the first place.

Phil

John Keeping· Jun 14, 2013, 12:29 UTC · re: Phil Hord · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:12:56AM -0400, Phil Hord wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If a rebasing pull is requested, pull unconditionally runs
> > require_clean_worktree() resulting in:
> >
> >   # dirty worktree or index
> >   $ git pull
> >   Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
> >   Please commit or stash them.
> >
> > It does this to inform the user early on that a rebase cannot be run on
> > a dirty worktree, and that a stash is required.  However,
> > rr/rebase-autostash lifts this limitation on rebase by providing a way
> > to automatically stash using the rebase.autostash configuration
> > variable.  Read this variable in pull, and take advantage of this
> > feature.
> 
> This commit message does not tell me what this commit does.  It mostly
> describes the current situation.  Then it refers to something called
> "rr/rebase-autostash" which will lose meaning in the future when this
> commit is no longer current on the list.  A better way to refer to
> this commit is to say "this commit".  However, even this is not the
> norm for this project.  The norm here is to avoid such noise by
> speaking in the imperative mood.  That is, do not tell me what this
> commit does; instead, tell the code what to do.  See
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches:

It seems to me that Ram's message is already in the imperative. The only (slight) issue is that rr/rebase-autostash will become hard to find once Junio cleans up feature branches that have graduated. Since that branch has graduated to master, it would be clearer to refer to commit 5879477 (rebase: implement --[no-]autostash and rebase.autostash, 2013-05-12). Is something like this clearer?

    "git pull" currently cannot be used with the "autostash" feature
    added to "git rebase" by commit 5879477 (rebase: implement
    --[no-]autostash and rebase.autostash, 2013-05-12) because it
    unconditionally calls requre_clean_worktree early on, which results
    in:

        # dirty worktree or index
        $ git pull
        Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
        Please commit or stash them.

    Remove this restriction by skipping the call to
    require_clean_worktree if the "rebase.autostash" configuration
    variable is set.

Phil Hord· Jun 14, 2013, 12:41 UTC · re: John Keeping · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:29 AM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:

Show 49 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:12:56AM -0400, Phil Hord wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
>> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If a rebasing pull is requested, pull unconditionally runs
>> > require_clean_worktree() resulting in:
>> >
>> >   # dirty worktree or index
>> >   $ git pull
>> >   Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
>> >   Please commit or stash them.
>> >
>> > It does this to inform the user early on that a rebase cannot be run on
>> > a dirty worktree, and that a stash is required.  However,
>> > rr/rebase-autostash lifts this limitation on rebase by providing a way
>> > to automatically stash using the rebase.autostash configuration
>> > variable.  Read this variable in pull, and take advantage of this
>> > feature.
>>
>> This commit message does not tell me what this commit does.  It mostly
>> describes the current situation.  Then it refers to something called
>> "rr/rebase-autostash" which will lose meaning in the future when this
>> commit is no longer current on the list.  A better way to refer to
>> this commit is to say "this commit".  However, even this is not the
>> norm for this project.  The norm here is to avoid such noise by
>> speaking in the imperative mood.  That is, do not tell me what this
>> commit does; instead, tell the code what to do.  See
>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
>
> It seems to me that Ram's message is already in the imperative.  The
> only (slight) issue is that rr/rebase-autostash will become hard to find
> once Junio cleans up feature branches that have graduated.  Since that
> branch has graduated to master, it would be clearer to refer to commit
> 5879477 (rebase: implement --[no-]autostash and rebase.autostash,
> 2013-05-12).  Is something like this clearer?
>
>     "git pull" currently cannot be used with the "autostash" feature
>     added to "git rebase" by commit 5879477 (rebase: implement
>     --[no-]autostash and rebase.autostash, 2013-05-12) because it
>     unconditionally calls requre_clean_worktree early on, which results
>     in:
>
>         # dirty worktree or index
>         $ git pull
>         Cannot pull with rebase: Your index contains uncommitted changes.
>         Please commit or stash them.
>
>     Remove this restriction by skipping the call to
>     require_clean_worktree if the "rebase.autostash" configuration
>     variable is set.

Yes, thanks. I was mislead by my poor understanding all the players involved. This disambiguates things nicely.

Phil

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 12:46 UTC · re: John Keeping · lore

Re: [PATCH 1/2] pull: respect rebase.autostash

John Keeping wrote:

> Is something like this clearer?
> [...]

Yes, thanks.

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 08:56 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

[PATCH 2/2] pull: clarify the large && { ... } form

Remove the large && { ... } form, as the block can be confused with a function block. Use a simple if-condition instead. No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
---
 git-pull.sh | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Show changes to git-pull.sh +3 −2

diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
index fb01763..babf009 100755
--- a/git-pull.sh
+++ b/git-pull.sh
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ error_on_no_merge_candidates () {
 	exit 1
 }
 
-test true = "$rebase" && {
+if test true = "$rebase"; then
 	if ! git rev-parse -q --verify HEAD >/dev/null
 	then
 		# On an unborn branch
@@ -220,7 +220,8 @@ test true = "$rebase" && {
 			break
 		fi
 	done
-}
+fi
+
 orig_head=$(git rev-parse -q --verify HEAD)
 git fetch $verbosity $progress $dry_run $recurse_submodules --update-head-ok "$@" || exit 1
 test -z "$dry_run" || exit 0

-- 
1.8.3.1.379.gb74074e.dirty

Matthieu Moy· Jun 14, 2013, 09:09 UTC · re: Ramkumar Ramachandra · lore

Re: [PATCH 2/2] pull: clarify the large && { ... } form

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> -test true = "$rebase" && {
> +if test true = "$rebase"; then

Use a newline, not a ';'.

See CodingGuideLines:

 - Do not write control structures on a single line with semicolon.
   "then" should be on the next line for if statements, and "do"
   should be on the next line for "while" and "for".

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Ramkumar Ramachandra· Jun 14, 2013, 10:47 UTC · re: Matthieu Moy · lore

Re: [PATCH 2/2] pull: clarify the large && { ... } form

Matthieu Moy wrote:

> Use a newline, not a ';'.

Thanks.