On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 13:37, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/2025 13:10, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > While onboarding somebody today we noticed an error in the
> > customization script if you use a non-default value for the local
> > prefix.
> >
> > I reproduced it with bash -x to show where it happens. In the output
> > below I entered "jw" as the local prefix, instead of the default "me":
> >
> > + echo 'Setting up tracking for personal namespace redi in remotes/users/jw'
> > Setting up tracking for personal namespace redi in remotes/users/jw
> > + git config remote.users/jw.url git+ssh://r...@gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
> > + '[' x '!=' x ']'
> > + git config --replace-all remote.users/jw.fetch
> > '+refs/users/redi/heads/*:refs/remotes/users/jw/*'
> > refs/users/redi/heads/
> > + git config --replace-all remote.users/jw.fetch
> > '+refs/users/redi/tags/*:refs/tags/users/jw/*' refs/users/redi/tags/
> > + git config --replace-all remote.users/jw.push
> > 'refs/heads/jw/*:refs/users/redi/heads/*' refs/users/redi
> > + '[' me '!=' jw -a me '!=' origin ']'
> > + git config --remove-section remote.me
> > fatal: no such section: remote.me
> > + git config --unset-all remote.origin.fetch refs/users/redi/
> > + git config --unset-all remote.origin.push refs/users/redi/
> > + git fetch users/jw
> >
> > The script finishes successfully, but because the last line that is
> > printed out is "fatal: no such section: remote.me" it makes it look
> > like it failed and exited. But it's only fatal to the 'git config'
> > sub-process, not the script that the user is actually running.
> >
> > Should we just add a 2>/dev/null redirect to that command, or do we
> > want to check if it exists before trying to remove it? i.e.
> > if git config get --regexp remote.me >/dev/null; then
>
> You'd want to match ^remote.${old_pfx}, for safety.
Good point!
> You could also use 'git config --get-regexp', but perhaps that's what you
> mean anyway.
I think 'get --regexp' works, but it doesn't matter if we just remove
that chunk.
>
> > git config --remove-section remote.me
> > fi
> >
> > Or should we just remove that part entirely?
> > I doubt anybody used the original version of that script prior to
> > January 2020, and hasn't updated to the new structure yet. See
> > r10-6086-g24b178184f260a which introduced that part.
>
> But this might be easier. I agree, that was very much a transitional bit of
> code as we settled on our new workflows.
>
> I'll trust your decision on this one.
I'll wait for any other comments, but if nobody disagrees, I think we
should remove it. How much of it is cleaning up the old config, just
this?
-- a/contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh
+++ b/contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh
@@ -205,12 +205,4 @@ git config --replace-all
"remote.users/${new_pfx}.fetch" "+refs/users/${remote_i
git config --replace-all "remote.users/${new_pfx}.fetch"
"+refs/users/${remote_id}/tags/*:refs/tags/users/${new_pfx}/*" "re
fs/users/${remote_id}/tags/"
git config --replace-all "remote.users/${new_pfx}.push"
"refs/heads/${new_pfx}/*:refs/users/${remote_id}/heads/*" "refs/use
rs/${remote_id}"
-if [ "$old_pfx" != "$new_pfx" -a "$old_pfx" != "${upstream}" ]
-then
- git config --remove-section "remote.${old_pfx}"
-fi
-
-git config --unset-all "remote.${upstream}.fetch" "refs/users/${remote_id}/"
-git config --unset-all "remote.${upstream}.push" "refs/users/${remote_id}/"
-
git fetch "users/${new_pfx}"
While making t hat edit, I noticed that the lines above it have:
git config --replace-all "remote.users/${new_pfx}.fetch"
"+refs/users/${remote_id}/heads/*:refs/remotes/users/${new_pfx}/*"
"refs/users/${remote_id}/heads/"
git config --replace-all "remote.users/${new_pfx}.fetch"
"+refs/users/${remote_id}/tags/*:refs/tags/users/${new_pfx}/*"
"refs/users/${remote_id}/tags/"
That doesn't look right, because the second line will replace what was
done by the first.
