threads / discuss / 8621

config-glob-octopus

Subject: config-glob-octopus

## tl;dr

3 messages between Jun 17, 2007 and Jun 17, 2007.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Daniel Barkalow· Jun 17, 2007, 01:02 UTC · lore
With this configuration:
[remote "config-glob"]
	fetch = refs/heads/one:refs/remotes/rem/one
	fetch = refs/heads/two:refs/remotes/rem/two
	fetch = refs/heads/three:refs/remotes/rem/three
[branch "br-config-glob-octopus"]
	remote = config-glob
	merge = refs/heads/one
	merge = two
	merge = remotes/rem/three

It seems to me like "two" should be marked for merge, since "two" canonicalizes to "refs/heads/two", which matches the pattern and is fetched. However, current git-fetch marks it not-for-merge, and the test demands this.

Shouldn't the value of "merge" permit the same shortcuts that the lhs of "fetch" permits, even if the matching fetch line isn't using them in this case? (And vice versa, for a canonical value of merge when the fetch is a shortcut)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
Junio C Hamano· Jun 17, 2007, 01:43 UTC · re: Daniel Barkalow · lore

Re: config-glob-octopus

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> With this configuration:
>
> [remote "config-glob"]
> 	fetch = refs/heads/one:refs/remotes/rem/one
> 	fetch = refs/heads/two:refs/remotes/rem/two
> 	fetch = refs/heads/three:refs/remotes/rem/three
> [branch "br-config-glob-octopus"]
> 	remote = config-glob
> 	merge = refs/heads/one
> 	merge = two
> 	merge = remotes/rem/three
>
> It seems to me like "two" should be marked for merge, since "two" 
> canonicalizes to "refs/heads/two", which matches the pattern and is 
> fetched. However, current git-fetch marks it not-for-merge, and the test 
> demands this.
>
> Shouldn't the value of "merge" permit the same shortcuts that the lhs of 
> "fetch" permits, even if the matching fetch line isn't using them in this 
> case? (And vice versa, for a canonical value of merge when the fetch is a 
> shortcut)

I do not see much reason for that kind of complication. Honestly speaking, I do not like the fallback that we use for the third one (using the remote tracking name).

When you are righting down your configuration file, you are doing so to reuse that entry over and over, so why not be explicit for once and not worry about cases where the remote adds ambiguous 'two' that is not refs/heads/two?

Daniel Barkalow· Jun 17, 2007, 03:28 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: config-glob-octopus

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > With this configuration:
> >
> > [remote "config-glob"]
> > 	fetch = refs/heads/one:refs/remotes/rem/one
> > 	fetch = refs/heads/two:refs/remotes/rem/two
> > 	fetch = refs/heads/three:refs/remotes/rem/three
> > [branch "br-config-glob-octopus"]
> > 	remote = config-glob
> > 	merge = refs/heads/one
> > 	merge = two
> > 	merge = remotes/rem/three
> >
> > It seems to me like "two" should be marked for merge, since "two" 
> > canonicalizes to "refs/heads/two", which matches the pattern and is 
> > fetched. However, current git-fetch marks it not-for-merge, and the test 
> > demands this.
> >
> > Shouldn't the value of "merge" permit the same shortcuts that the lhs of 
> > "fetch" permits, even if the matching fetch line isn't using them in this 
> > case? (And vice versa, for a canonical value of merge when the fetch is a 
> > shortcut)
> 
> I do not see much reason for that kind of complication.
> Honestly speaking, I do not like the fallback that we use for
> the third one (using the remote tracking name).

Actually, with my current code it's a simplification to have the code expand all shortcuts up front and do all of the matching on explicit names. I'm trying to use "struct ref" for fetching, and it doesn't work if you have to store both the name that would match a "merge" setting and the name that would match the actual remote ref.

> When you are righting down your configuration file, you are
> doing so to reuse that entry over and over, so why not be
> explicit for once and not worry about cases where the remote
> adds ambiguous 'two' that is not refs/heads/two?

I'd personally be in favor of requiring the config file to be explicit everywhere, for just this reason, but we've got tests, if not documentation (and I haven't checked documentation on this one) saying that shortcuts work in config files.

This is, this is supported, and marks refs/heads/two for merge:
[remote "config-glob"]
	fetch = refs/heads/one:refs/remotes/rem/one
	fetch = two:refs/remotes/rem/two
	fetch = refs/heads/three:refs/remotes/rem/three
[branch "br-config-glob-octopus"]
	remote = config-glob
	merge = refs/heads/one
	merge = two
	merge = remotes/rem/three

But I'd prefer to by able to discard the information of whether a short form was used early.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

← back to recent threads