On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Cole wrote:
> Also if there is anything else you are currently looking at regarding
> submodules or thinking about, I would be glad to hear about it or to try
> look at it while I am working on these changes. Or if there is anything
> you can think of for m
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:58:45PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > [+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
> >
> > If we only have a packed copy of "refs/heads/master" and it is broken,
> > then deleting any _other_ unrelated ref will cause refs/h
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> [+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
>
> If we only have a packed copy of "refs/heads/master" and it is broken,
> then deleting any _other_ unrelated ref will cause refs/heads/master to
> be dropped from the packed-refs file entirely. We get an e
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:19:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Something like the patch below might work, but I didn't test it very
> > thoroughly (and note the comments, which might need dealing with). Maybe
> > it would make a sensible base for Harry to build on if h
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:29:39AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Dropping curate_packed_ref_fn (as below) fixes the test above. And
> miraculously does not even seem to conflict with ref patches in pu. :)
Of course I spoke too soon. The patch I sent is actually based on pu. It
is easy to make the equ
[+cc mhagger for packed-refs wisdom]
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:38:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Fsck tries hard to detect missing objects, and will complain
> (and exit non-zero) about any inter-object links that are
> missing. However, it will not exit non-zero for any missing
> ref tips, mean
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Upon finding a corrupt loose object, we forgot to note the error to
> > signal it with the exit status of the entire process.
> >
> > [jc: adjusted t1450 and added another test]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano
> > ---
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>> (alias R=$GIT_COMMON_DIR/worktrees/)
>>
>> - linked checkouts are supposed to keep its location in $R/gitdir up
>>to date. The use case is auto fixup after a manual checkout move.
>>
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:35:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Here is the patch I wrote, for reference (I also think breaking the
> > "matches" function into a series of conditionals, as you showed, is way
> > more readable):
>
> OK, while reviewing the today's issue
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:16:26AM +0530, Stephen Smith wrote:
> Is there a way to get a log of first parent commits and with each
> commit a entry a list of the files that were changed?
How about:
git log --first-parent -m --name-only
The "--first-parent" restricts the traversal. The "-m" t
Is there a way to get a log of first parent commits and with each commit a
entry a list of the files that were changed?
SPS
Sent from my iPhone--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://v
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> These patches are also available from the git repository at
>>
>> git://repo.or.cz/git/jrn.git tags/rs/ref-transaction
>
> The tag fetched and built as-is seems to break 5514 among other
> things ("git remote rm" segfaults).
Yeah, I noticed th
Jeff King writes:
> Here is the patch I wrote, for reference (I also think breaking the
> "matches" function into a series of conditionals, as you showed, is way
> more readable):
OK, while reviewing the today's issue of "What's cooking" and making
topics graduate to 'master', I got annoyed that
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
'-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
'+' are in 'next'.
The third batch of topics have graduated to 'master'. There are too
many topics waiting to be in 'next' but without comments and reviews
on the
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> This is a bit easier to read than the old version, which nested part
> of the non-error code in an "if" block.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> lockfile.c | 23 +++
> 1 file
Maybe we should not have a public constant defined for the length :
+#define LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN 5
since it encourages unsafe code like : (this was unsafe long before
your patch so not a regression)
+ i = strlen(result_file) - LOCK_SUFFIX_LEN; /* .lock */
result_file[i] = 0;
What abo
Harry Jeffery writes:
> The prefix, separator and suffix for decorations are hard-coded. Make
> format_decorations more flexible by having the caller specify the
> prefix, separator and suffix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harry Jeffery
> ---
> log-tree.c | 16 +---
> log-tree.h | 2 +-
> pr
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> These patches are also available from the git repository at
>
> git://repo.or.cz/git/jrn.git tags/rs/ref-transaction
The tag fetched and built as-is seems to break 5514 among other
things ("git remote rm" segfaults).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> There are a few places that use these values, so define constants for
> them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> cache.h| 4
> lockfile.c | 11 ++-
> refs.c | 7 ---
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>> The next series from Ronnie's collection is available at
>> https://code-review.googlesource.com/#/q/topic:ref-transaction in case
>> someone wants a fresh series to look at.
>
> Here is the outcome of that review. It could use another set of
This is allows "hash-object --stdin" to just hash any garbage into a
"loose object" that may not pass the standard object parsing check
or fsck, so that different kind of corrupt objects third-party tools
may create can be imitated in our test suite. That would in turn
allow us to test features th
Instead of forcing callers of lower level functions write
(write_object ? HASH_WRITE_OBJECT : 0), prepare the flag to be
passed down in the callchain from the command line parser.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano
---
builtin/hash-object.c | 32 +++-
1 file changed, 15 in
Junio C Hamano writes:
> When our toolset has become too tight without leaving enough escape
> hatch to hinder further development, it is very sensible to at least
> think about adding a new "--for-debug" option to hash-object and
> pack-objects that allows us to deliberately create broken
> data
Our toolset may have become too tight without leaving enough escape
hatch to hinder further development. "hash-object" makes minimum
sanity checks by default for a very good reason, but it means that
we cannot deliberately create broken datastreams to test against
fsck and other codepaths that are
Most of the knobs that affect helper functions called from
cmd_hash_object() were passed to them as parameters already, and the
only effect of having them as file-scope statics was to make the
reader wonder if the parameters are hiding the file-scope global
values by accident. Adjust their initial
Steffen Prohaska writes:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to update the stat information recorded in the index without
> reading the file content from disk?
>
> Starting from a clean working copy with a committed `file`, I'd like
>
> touch file
> git file
>
> to bring the index into essentiall
githooks(5) suggests:
Information about why the push is rejected may be sent to the user
by writing to standard error.
So follow that advice in the sample.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
templates/hooks--pre-push.sample | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a
Excerpts from Jens Lehmann's message of 2014-09-11 21:21:04 +0200:
> Am 11.09.2014 um 19:11 schrieb Cole Minnaar:
> > Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
> > command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently
> > active
> > branch from the clon
Max Kirillov writes:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Max Kirillov writes:
>>
>>> If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
>>> preserved unless it has changed in this instance
>>
>> It would have been easier to understand why this is a
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Document the valid states of lock_file objects, how they get into each
> state, and how the state is encoded in the object's fields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> lockfile.c | 52 +
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> This makes it obvious that we have no plans to change the integer
> pointed to, which is actually the fd field from a struct lock_file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> refs.c | 2 +-
> 1 file ch
Harry Jeffery writes:
> On 11/09/14 17:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
>> probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
>
> Would you like me to resubmit it as a single patch, or are you
> applying them as is?
>
>> And
Am 08.09.2014 um 19:29 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Thomas Rast writes:
The existing code passed revs->dense_combined_merges along revs itself
into the combine-diff functions, which is rather redundant. Remove
the 'dense' argument until much further down the callchain to simplify
callers.
It was
Am 11.09.2014 um 19:50 schrieb ezyang:
Hello all,
In many situations, if you have a submodule conflict during a rebase,
and you type 'git diff' to get a summary of the situation, you will get
an empty diff. Here's a simple transcript for one such case (I'm sorry
I can't make it much shorter), t
Am 11.09.2014 um 19:11 schrieb Cole Minnaar:
Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently active
branch from the cloned repository. If a branch is specified using the
`--branch` command, the 'submodule
This notification is from your IT Helpdesk Service. We have detected your
Mailbox is out of date. We want to upgrade all email account scheduled for
today. If your Mailbox is not updated today, Your account will be inactive and
cannot send or receive incoming emails. To complete this procedure,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Max Kirillov writes:
>
>> If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
>> preserved unless it has changed in this instance
>
> It would have been easier to understand why this is a desirable
> change if you stat
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> It is only necessary to clear the lock_file's filename field if it was
> not already clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> lockfile.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Eliminate a layer of nesting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
> ---
> lockfile.c | 13 +++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lockfile.c b/lockfile.c
> index a5
Hi,
Is there a way to update the stat information recorded in the index without
reading the file content from disk?
Starting from a clean working copy with a committed `file`, I'd like
touch file
git file
to bring the index into essentially the same state as
touch file
git s
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > This has a fairly straightforward conflict with the ref-transaction
> > stuff in pu. The "oldrefname" parameter to is_refname_available became a
> > list of items;
>
> Hmph, the trouble I had while reading
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> One of the most important use cases for the strict tag object checking
> is when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true to catch invalid objects
> early on. This new regression test essentially tests the same code path
> by directly calling 'index-pack --strict' on a pa
Hello all,
In many situations, if you have a submodule conflict during a rebase,
and you type 'git diff' to get a summary of the situation, you will get
an empty diff. Here's a simple transcript for one such case (I'm sorry
I can't make it much shorter), tested on git version 2.0.3.693.g996b0fd:
Steffen Prohaska writes:
> The single-parameter form is described as the preferred way. Separate
> arguments are only supported for backward compatibility. Update the
> example to the recommended form.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska
> ---
My fault. Thanks for catching.
> Documentation
On 11/09/14 17:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
> probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
Would you like me to resubmit it as a single patch, or are you applying
them as is?
> And of course a few additional test
Max Kirillov writes:
> If a variable is changed in a concurrent gitk or manually it is
> preserved unless it has changed in this instance
It would have been easier to understand why this is a desirable
change if you stated what problem you are trying to solve before
that sentence. "If I do X, Y
Currently when specifying the `--depth` option to the 'submodule add'
command, it can only create a shallow submodule clone of the currently active
branch from the cloned repository. If a branch is specified using the
`--branch` command, the 'submodule add' will result in an error as the
branch wil
Jeff King writes:
> This has a fairly straightforward conflict with the ref-transaction
> stuff in pu. The "oldrefname" parameter to is_refname_available became a
> list of items;
Hmph, the trouble I had while reading the conflicts was about the
new "we skip these when repacking", not "oldrefnam
Hi Junio,
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> Johannes Schindelin writes:
> >>
> >> > +tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin >> > +pack1=$(echo $tag | git pack-objects tag-test) &&
> >> >
Because patch 1/2 alone does not make much sense without 2/2, it
probably would have been better to do these as a single patch.
And of course a few additional tests to t4205 would not hurt ;-)
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to m
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>>
>> > +tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin > > +pack1=$(echo $tag | git pack-objects tag-test) &&
>> > +echo remove tag object &&
>> > +thirtyeight=${tag#??} &
Johannes Schindelin writes:
>> > + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
>> > + switch (buffer[i]) {
>> > + case '\0':
>> > + return error_func(obj, FSCK_ERROR,
>> > + "invalid message: NUL at offset %d", i);
>>
>> Isn't this "invalid header"?
On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> (alias R=$GIT_COMMON_DIR/worktrees/)
>
> - linked checkouts are supposed to keep its location in $R/gitdir up
>to date. The use case is auto fixup after a manual checkout move.
>
> - linked checkouts are supposed to update mtime of $R/gitd
The single-parameter form is described as the preferred way. Separate
arguments are only supported for backward compatibility. Update the
example to the recommended form.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska
---
Documentation/git-update-index.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-
On 14-09-10 06:41 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> "git checkout --to" sets up a new working directory with a .git file
> pointing to $GIT_DIR/worktrees/. It then executes "git checkout"
> again on the new worktree with the same arguments except "--to" is
> taken out. The second checkout execution
The intent of the new test case is to catch general breakages in
the fsck_tag() function, not so much to test it extensively, trying to
strike the proper balance between thoroughness and speed.
While it *would* have been nice to test the code path where fsck_object()
encounters an invalid tag obje
We inspect commit objects pretty much in detail in git-fsck, but we just
glanced over the tag objects. Let's be stricter.
Since we do not want to limit 'tag' lines unduly, values that would fail
the refname check only result in warnings, not errors.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin
---
fsck.c
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > Johannes Schindelin writes:
> >
> >> This patch series introduces detailed checking of tag objects when calling
> >> git fsck, and also when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true.
> >>
> >> To this end, the fsck
One of the most important use cases for the strict tag object checking
is when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true to catch invalid objects
early on. This new regression test essentially tests the same code path
by directly calling 'index-pack --strict' on a pack containing an
tag object without a
So far, we assumed that the buffer is NUL terminated, but this is not
a safe assumption, now that we opened the fsck_object() API to pass a
buffer directly.
So let's make sure that there is at least an empty line in the buffer.
That way, our checks would fail if the empty line was encountered
prem
This patch series introduces detailed checking of tag objects when calling
git fsck, and also when transfer.fsckobjects is set to true.
To this end, the fsck machinery is reworked to accept the buffer and size
of the object to check, and for commit and tag objects, we verify that the
buffers conta
When fsck'ing an incoming pack, we need to fsck objects that cannot be
read via read_sha1_file() because they are not local yet (and might even
be rejected if transfer.fsckobjects is set to 'true').
For commits, there is a hack in place: we basically cache commit
objects' buffers anyway, but the s
In the next commits, we will enhance the fsck_tag() function to check
tag objects more thoroughly. To this end, we need a function to verify
that a given string is a valid object type, but that does not die() in
the negative case.
While at it, prepare type_from_string() for counted strings, i.e. s
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > +tag=$(git hash-object -t tag -w --stdin > +pack1=$(echo $tag | git pack-objects tag-test) &&
> > +echo remove tag object &&
> > +thirtyeight=${tag#??} &&
> > +rm -f .git/objects/${tag%$thirt
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > + test_when_finished "git update-ref -d refs/tags/wrong" &&
> > + git fsck --tags 2>out &&
>
> I wonder what the command does with or without --tags option
> (applies to both tests added by this patch)
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
> > diff --git a/fsck.c b/fsck.c
> > index dd77628..9dd7d12 100644
> > --- a/fsck.c
> > +++ b/fsck.c
> > @@ -237,6 +237,26 @@ static int fsck_tree(struct tree *item, int strict,
> > fsck_error error_func)
> >
66 matches
Mail list logo
