This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 9, 2017. It is now read-only.
Add a README.md file #3
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This really is just a test whether the mail forwarding of pull requests works. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Member
Author
|
Hmpf. It seems that my answer via mail did not make it to this thread. Hopefully at least this answer makes it to the mailing list again. |
Member
Author
|
Now I changed the email address of the pull-request-forwarding account to the mailing list's. This means that all the mails will be moderated (which makes sense for password reset requests, all you jokers out there!). But it also means that we do not have to rely on the buggy hotmail service (which I hoped had improved in the meantime). |
|
From: "dscho"
Seen by: Philip Oakley, on the msysgit list.
|
|
Thanks Philip! For the record, I changed it back to the hotmail address, since I was really feeling uncomfortable with forwarding every and all mails sent to the msysgit-github GitHub account. |
Member
Author
|
Since we have that README file, I close the issue now. |
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Sep 7, 2013
In 41c21f2 (branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/*), we changed the rules for what is considered a valid tracking branch (a.k.a. upstream branch). We now use the configured remotes and their refspecs to determine whether a proposed tracking branch is in fact within the domain of a remote, and we then use that information to deduce the upstream configuration (branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge). However, with that change, we also check that - in addition to a matching refspec - the result of mapping the tracking branch through that refspec (i.e. the corresponding ref name in the remote repo) happens to start with "refs/heads/". In other words, we require that a tracking branch refers to a _branch_ in the remote repo. Now, consider that you are e.g. setting up an automated building/testing infrastructure for a group of similar "source" repositories. The build/test infrastructure consists of a central scheduler, and a number of build/test "slave" machines that perform the actual build/test work. The scheduler monitors the group of similar repos for changes (e.g. with a periodic "git fetch"), and triggers builds/tests to be run on one or more slaves. Graphically the changes flow between the repos like this: Source git-for-windows#1 -------v ----> Slave git-for-windows#1 / Source git-for-windows#2 -----> Scheduler -----> Slave git-for-windows#2 \ Source git-for-windows#3 -------^ ----> Slave git-for-windows#3 ... ... The scheduler maintains a single Git repo with each of the source repos set up as distinct remotes. The slaves also need access to all the changes from all of the source repos, so they pull from the scheduler repo, but using the following custom refspec: remote.origin.fetch = "+refs/remotes/*:refs/remotes/*" This makes all of the scheduler's remote-tracking branches automatically available as identical remote-tracking branches in each of the slaves. Now, consider what happens if a slave tries to create a local branch with one of the remote-tracking branches as upstream: git branch local_branch --track refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch Git now looks at the configured remotes (in this case there is only "origin", pointing to the scheduler's repo) and sees refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch matching origin's refspec. Mapping through that refspec we find that the corresponding remote ref name is "refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch". However, since this remote ref name does not start with "refs/heads/", we discard it as a suitable upstream, and the whole command fails. This patch adds a testcase demonstrating this failure by creating two source repos ("a" and "b") that are forwarded through a scheduler ("c") to a slave repo ("d"), that then tries create a local branch with an upstream. See the next patch in this series for the exciting conclusion to this story... Reported-by: Per Cederqvist <cederp@opera.com> Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Sep 10, 2013
In 41c21f2 (branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/*), we changed the rules for what is considered a valid tracking branch (a.k.a. upstream branch). We now use the configured remotes and their refspecs to determine whether a proposed tracking branch is in fact within the domain of a remote, and we then use that information to deduce the upstream configuration (branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge). However, with that change, we also check that - in addition to a matching refspec - the result of mapping the tracking branch through that refspec (i.e. the corresponding ref name in the remote repo) happens to start with "refs/heads/". In other words, we require that a tracking branch refers to a _branch_ in the remote repo. Now, consider that you are e.g. setting up an automated building/testing infrastructure for a group of similar "source" repositories. The build/test infrastructure consists of a central scheduler, and a number of build/test "slave" machines that perform the actual build/test work. The scheduler monitors the group of similar repos for changes (e.g. with a periodic "git fetch"), and triggers builds/tests to be run on one or more slaves. Graphically the changes flow between the repos like this: Source git-for-windows#1 -------v ----> Slave git-for-windows#1 / Source git-for-windows#2 -----> Scheduler -----> Slave git-for-windows#2 \ Source git-for-windows#3 -------^ ----> Slave git-for-windows#3 ... ... The scheduler maintains a single Git repo with each of the source repos set up as distinct remotes. The slaves also need access to all the changes from all of the source repos, so they pull from the scheduler repo, but using the following custom refspec: remote.origin.fetch = "+refs/remotes/*:refs/remotes/*" This makes all of the scheduler's remote-tracking branches automatically available as identical remote-tracking branches in each of the slaves. Now, consider what happens if a slave tries to create a local branch with one of the remote-tracking branches as upstream: git branch local_branch --track refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch Git now looks at the configured remotes (in this case there is only "origin", pointing to the scheduler's repo) and sees refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch matching origin's refspec. Mapping through that refspec we find that the corresponding remote ref name is "refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch". However, since this remote ref name does not start with "refs/heads/", we discard it as a suitable upstream, and the whole command fails. This patch adds a testcase demonstrating this failure by creating two source repos ("a" and "b") that are forwarded through a scheduler ("c") to a slave repo ("d"), that then tries create a local branch with an upstream. See the next patch in this series for the exciting conclusion to this story... Reported-by: Per Cederqvist <cederp@opera.com> Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
dscho
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2014
Suppose a fetch or push is requested between two shallow repositories (with no history deepening or shortening). A pack that contains necessary objects is transferred over together with .git/shallow of the sender. The receiver has to determine whether it needs to update .git/shallow if new refs needs new shallow comits. The rule here is avoid updating .git/shallow by default. But we don't want to waste the received pack. If the pack contains two refs, one needs new shallow commits installed in .git/shallow and one does not, we keep the latter and reject/warn about the former. Even if .git/shallow update is allowed, we only add shallow commits strictly necessary for the former ref (remember the sender can send more shallow commits than necessary) and pay attention not to accidentally cut the receiver history short (no history shortening is asked for) So the steps to figure out what ref need what new shallow commits are: 1. Split the sender shallow commit list into "ours" and "theirs" list by has_sha1_file. Those that exist in current repo in "ours", the remaining in "theirs". 2. Check the receiver .git/shallow, remove from "ours" the ones that also exist in .git/shallow. 3. Fetch the new pack. Either install or unpack it. 4. Do has_sha1_file on "theirs" list again. Drop the ones that fail has_sha1_file. Obviously the new pack does not need them. 5. If the pack is kept, remove from "ours" the ones that do not exist in the new pack. 6. Walk the new refs to answer the question "what shallow commits, both ours and theirs, are required in .git/shallow in order to add this ref?". Shallow commits not associated to any refs are removed from their respective list. 7. (*) Check reachability (from the current refs) of all remaining commits in "ours". Those reachable are removed. We do not want to cut any part of our (reachable) history. We only check up commits. True reachability test is done by check_everything_connected() at the end as usual. 8. Combine the final "ours" and "theirs" and add them all to .git/shallow. Install new refs. The case where some hook rejects some refs on a push is explained in more detail in the push patches. Of these steps, #6 and #7 are expensive. Both require walking through some commits, or in the worst case all commits. And we rather avoid them in at least common case, where the transferred pack does not contain any shallow commits that the sender advertises. Let's look at each scenario: 1) the sender has longer history than the receiver All shallow commits from the sender will be put into "theirs" list at step 1 because none of them exists in current repo. In the common case, "theirs" becomes empty at step 4 and exit early. 2) the sender has shorter history than the receiver All shallow commits from the sender are likely in "ours" list at step 1. In the common case, if the new pack is kept, we could empty "ours" and exit early at step 5. If the pack is not kept, we hit the expensive step 6 then exit after "ours" is emptied. There'll be only a handful of objects to walk in fast-forward case. If it's forced update, we may need to walk to the bottom. 3) the sender has same .git/shallow as the receiver This is similar to case 2 except that "ours" should be emptied at step 2 and exit early. A fetch after "clone --depth=X" is case 1. A fetch after "clone" (from a shallow repo) is case 3. Luckily they're cheap for the common case. A push from "clone --depth=X" falls into case 2, which is expensive. Some more work may be done at the sender/client side to avoid more work on the server side: if the transferred pack does not contain any shallow commits, send-pack should not send any shallow commits to the receive-pack, effectively turning it into a normal push and avoid all steps. This patch implements all steps except #3, already handled by fetch-pack and receive-pack, #6 and #7, which has their own patch due to their size. (*) in previous versions step 7 was put before step 3. I reorder it so that the common case that keeps the pack does not need to walk commits at all. In future if we implement faster commit reachability check (maybe with the help of pack bitmaps or commit cache), step 7 could become cheap and be moved up before 6 again. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Jan 4, 2015
Use write_script. The resulting patch makes it a lot easier to understand what the written script is doing. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Jan 4, 2015
* jc/t9001-modernise: t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#5 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#4 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#3 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#2 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#1
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Jan 4, 2015
* jc/t9001-modernise: t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#5 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#4 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#3 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#2 t9001: style modernisation phase git-for-windows#1
t-b
pushed a commit
to t-b/git
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2015
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
PhilipOakley
referenced
this pull request
in PhilipOakley/git
Jun 1, 2015
The collect_parents() function now is responsible for
1. parsing the commits given on the command line into a list of
commits to be merged;
2. filtering these parents into independent ones; and
3. optionally calling fmt_merge_msg() via prepare_merge_message()
to prepare an auto-generated merge log message, using fake
contents that FETCH_HEAD would have had if these commits were
fetched from the current repository with "git pull . $args..."
Make "git merge FETCH_HEAD" to be the same as the traditional
git merge "$(git fmt-merge-msg <.git/FETCH_HEAD)" $commits
invocation of the command in "git pull", where $commits are the ones
that appear in FETCH_HEAD that are not marked as not-for-merge, by
making it do a bit more, specifically:
- noticing "FETCH_HEAD" is the only "commit" on the command line
and picking the commits that are not marked as not-for-merge as
the list of commits to be merged (substitute for step git-for-windows#1 above);
- letting the resulting list fed to step git-for-windows#2 above;
- doing the step git-for-windows#3 above, using the contents of the FETCH_HEAD
instead of fake contents crafted from the list of commits parsed
in the step git-for-windows#1 above.
Note that this changes the semantics. "git merge FETCH_HEAD" has
always behaved as if the first commit in the FETCH_HEAD file were
directly specified on the command line, creating a two-way merge
whose auto-generated merge log said "merge commit xyz". With this
change, if the previous fetch was to grab multiple branches (e.g.
"git fetch $there topic-a topic-b"), the new world order is to
create an octopus, behaving as if "git pull $there topic-a topic-b"
were run. This is a deliberate change to make that happen, and
can be seen in the changes to t3033 tests.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
kblees
pushed a commit
to kblees/git
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 25, 2015
A "rebase" replays changes of the local branch on top of something else, as such they are placed in stage msysgit#3 and referred to as "theirs", while the changes in the new base, typically a foreign work, are placed in stage msysgit#2 and referred to as "ours". Clarify the "checkout --ours/--theirs". * se/doc-checkout-ours-theirs: checkout: document subtlety around --ours/--theirs
t-b
pushed a commit
to t-b/git
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2015
When ac49f5c (rerere "remaining", 2011-02-16) split out a new helper function check_one_conflict() out of find_conflict() function, so that the latter will use the returned value from the new helper to update the loop control variable that is an index into active_cache[], the new variable incremented the index by one too many when it found a path with only stage msysgit#1 entry at the very end of active_cache[]. This "strange" return value does not have any effect on the loop control of two callers of this function, as they all notice that active_nr+2 is larger than active_nr just like active_nr+1 is, but nevertheless it puzzles the readers when they are trying to figure out what the function is trying to do. In fact, there is no need to do an early return. The code that follows after skipping the stage msysgit#1 entry is fully prepared to handle a case where the entry is at the very end of active_cache[]. Help future readers from unnecessary confusion by dropping an early return. We skip the stage msysgit#1 entry, and if there are stage msysgit#2 and stage msysgit#3 entries for the same path, we diagnose the path as THREE_STAGED (otherwise we say PUNTED), and then we skip all entries for the same path. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
t-b
pushed a commit
to t-b/git
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2015
A "rebase" replays changes of the local branch on top of something else, as such they are placed in stage msysgit#3 and referred to as "theirs", while the changes in the new base, typically a foreign work, are placed in stage msysgit#2 and referred to as "ours". Clarify the "checkout --ours/--theirs". * se/doc-checkout-ours-theirs: checkout: document subtlety around --ours/--theirs
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This really is just a test whether the mail forwarding of pull
requests works.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin johannes.schindelin@gmx.de