# [RFC 0/3] support negative refspecs 2 messages from 2020-08-15 to 2020-08-15. Participants: Jacob Keller. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/54050 ## Jacob Keller, 2020-08-15 00:28 Subject: [RFC 0/3] support negative refspecs Message-ID: <20200815002831.2468968-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20200815002831.2468968-1-jacob.e.keller%40intel.com ``` From: Jacob Keller This is more or less just a port of what Peff already had published a few years ago at https://lore.kernel.org/git/20140125013433.GA22336@sigill.intra.peff.net/ I cleaned some things up and made sure the tests pass, but haven't yet added any new tests. I think the overal design makes sense: applying positive first and then negative. This appears to be how negative pathspecs work at least as far as I could tell with a few trials. The first two patches are cleanup/fixups that I think could go separately if everyone agrees. The third is the meat of the idea, and where most of the work needs to be done. Jacob Keller (3): refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item refspec: make sure stack refspec_item variables are zeroed refspec: add support for negative refspecs builtin/fetch.c | 3 +++ builtin/remote.c | 1 + refspec.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ refspec.h | 29 +++++++++++++++------------- remote.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- remote.h | 9 ++++++++- transport.c | 1 + 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) base-commit: 878e727637ec5815ccb3301eb994a54df95b21b8 -- 2.28.0.163.g6104cc2f0b60 ``` ## Jacob Keller, 2020-08-15 00:29 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] support negative refspecs Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CA%2BP7%2BxoDckBukFF9MnkhmWDdJxEcCZK5jg6HJcBbPcXB70xOUQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20200815002831.2468968-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> ``` On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:28 PM Jacob Keller wrote: > > From: Jacob Keller > > This is more or less just a port of what Peff already had published a few > years ago at https://lore.kernel.org/git/20140125013433.GA22336@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > > I cleaned some things up and made sure the tests pass, but haven't yet added > any new tests. > > I think the overal design makes sense: applying positive first and then > negative. This appears to be how negative pathspecs work at least as far as > I could tell with a few trials. > > The first two patches are cleanup/fixups that I think could go separately if > everyone agrees. The third is the meat of the idea, and where most of the > work needs to be done. > > Jacob Keller (3): > refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item > refspec: make sure stack refspec_item variables are zeroed > refspec: add support for negative refspecs > > builtin/fetch.c | 3 +++ > builtin/remote.c | 1 + > refspec.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > refspec.h | 29 +++++++++++++++------------- > remote.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > remote.h | 9 ++++++++- > transport.c | 1 + > 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 878e727637ec5815ccb3301eb994a54df95b21b8 > -- > 2.28.0.163.g6104cc2f0b60 > This probably doesn't have the right reply headers, because I forgot to send the cover letter along with the patches and realized it after I hit send. Sorry! Thanks, Jake ```