2018-03-21 23:36 GMT+03:00 Junio C Hamano :
> Olga Telezhnaya writes:
>
>> @@ -2144,13 +2151,15 @@ int format_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item
>> *info,
>>
>> for (cp = format->format; *cp && (sp = find_next(cp)); cp = ep + 1) {
>> struct atom_value *atomv;
>> +
2018-03-21 23:20 GMT+03:00 Junio C Hamano :
> Olga Telezhnaya writes:
>
>> Add function strbuf_error() that helps to save few lines of code.
>> Function expands fmt with placeholders, append resulting error message
>> to strbuf *err, and return error code ret.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Olga Telezhnaia
Thanks for splitting these changes into smaller, more manageable
chunks. A couple non-code comments below apply to both patches in this
2-patch series even though I'm responding only to this patch. (The
actual code changes in the other patch looked fine and the patch was
easily digested.)
On Fri,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:46:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > which begs the question, how much slower would it be if we
> > replaced the radix-sort with an in-place sort (e.g. heapsort).
> >
> > I hacked up the patch below, just for fun. I don't have any
> > large repos (or enough disk space) t
"git filter-branch -- --all" print unwanted error messages when refs that
cannot be used with ^0 exist. Such refs can be created by "git replace" with
trees or blobs. Also, "git tag" with trees or blobs can create such refs.
---
git-filter-branch.sh | 14 --
t/t7003-filter-branch.s
This is v4 of the first 2 patches of "[RFC PATCH vV n/9] rebase-interactive",
looking forward to any additional comments.
Wink Saville (2):
rebase-interactive: Simplify pick_on_preserving_merges
rebase: Update invocation of rebase dot-sourced scripts
git-rebase--am.sh | 11
Use compound if statement instead of nested if statements to
simplify pick_on_preserving_merges.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
Reviewed-by: Junio C Hamano
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 17 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.
The backend scriptlets for "git rebase" were structured in a
bit unusual way for historical reasons. Originally, it was
designed in such a way that dot-sourcing them from "git
rebase" would be sufficient to invoke the specific backend.
When it was discovered that some shell implementations
(e.g.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 01:28:12AM +, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> > Of the used heap after your patches:
> >
> > - ~40% of that is from packlist_alloc()
> > - ~17% goes to "struct object"
> > - ~10% for the object.c hash table to store all the "struct object"
> > - ~7% goes to the delta cache
>
> However, if we pre-filter to limit the refs in "$tempdir/heads" to
> those that are committish (i.e. those that pass "$ref^0") like the
> patch and subsequent discussion suggests, wouldn't we lose the
> warning for these replace refs and non-committish tags. We perhaps
> could do something like:
This patch gives git-branch the ability to delete the previous
checked-out branch using the "-" shortcut. This shortcut already exists
for git-checkout, git-merge, and git-revert. One of my common workflows
is to do some work on a local topic branch and push it to a remote,
where it gets merged in
Add support for using the "-" shortcut to delete the last checked-out
branch. This functionality already exists for git-merge, git-checkout,
and git-revert.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Greenberg
---
builtin/branch.c | 3 +++
t/t3200-branch.sh | 9 +
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --gi
Wink Saville writes:
> Currently I'm not rebasing the other commits (3..9)
> to reduce the amount of work I have to do in each
> review cycle, is that OK?
Yeah, I want to see others more heavily involved in this part of the
system to comment on your patches. As to the organization of the
change
Hi all,
I'm Zhibin Li, an undergraduate from China and I'm interested in
automated testing. Since the application deadline is coming, hope it's
not too late for me to start with the microproject. If it's ok, I would
like to take Git CI Improvements 4 as my starting point. But the
description
On 22/03/18 09:32, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:59:19PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>>> I hate to be a wet blanket, but am I the only one who is wondering
>>> whether the tradeoffs is worth it? 8% memory reduction doesn't seem
>>> mind-bogglingly good,
>>
>> AEvar measured RSS. I
Hello,
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 23:08 +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu
> wrote:
> >
> > * Convert function: this step is basically makes up the goal of
> > this
> > project.
>
> Could you explain a bit more how you would convert a
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Wink Saville writes:
>
>> At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the
>> same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent.
>
> I mumbled about making git_rebase__$type functions for all $
The latest maintenance release Git v2.16.3 is now available at
the usual places. It merges many small fixes and documentation
updates that have been in the 'master' branch for a few weeks.
The tarballs are found at:
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/
The following public repositor
--
Donation made to you.
Donor: Mrs.Elisabeth Schaeffler Thumann.
please Contact;(mrselisabeth.schaefflerth0...@gmail.com) for more
details.
--
Donation made to you.
Donor: Mrs.Elisabeth Schaeffler Thumann.
please Contact;(mrselisabeth.schaefflerth0...@gmail.com) for more
details.
Hi,
here is my second draft of my proposal. As last time, any feedback is
welcome :)
I did not write my phone number and address here for obvious reasons,
but they will be in the “about me” section of the final proposal.
Apart from that, do you think there is something to add?
---
ABSTRACT
git
Konstantin Ryabitsev writes:
> $ time git rev-list --max-parents=0 HEAD
> a101ad945113be3d7f283a181810d76897f0a0d6
> cd26f1bd6bf3c73cc5afe848677b430ab342a909
> be0e5c097fc206b863ce9fe6b3cfd6974b0110f4
> 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
>
> real0m6.311s
> user0m6.153s
> sys 0m0
On 03/22/18 15:35, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I am not sure how Konstantin defines "the most efficient", but if it
> is "with the smallest number of bits exchanged between the
> repositories", then the answer would probably be to find the root
> commit(s) in each repository and if they share any commo
Wink Saville writes:
> At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the
> same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent.
I mumbled about making git_rebase__$type functions for all $type in
my previous response, but that was done without even loo
At Junio's suggestion have git-rebase--am and git-rebase--merge work the
same way as git-rebase--interactive. This makes the code more consistent.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--am.sh | 17 ++---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 8 +++-
git-rebase--merge.sh
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> But why !? Either Cc me on more of the series such that the whole makes
>> sense, or better yet, write a proper Changelog.
>
> This is a common issue. We should encourage people to always send at
> least the co
On Thu, Mar 22 2018, Junio C. Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
>> But of course that'll just give you the tips. You could then use `git
>> cat-file --batch-check` on both ends to see what commits from the other
>> they report knowing about, in case they have branches that are
>>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> But of course that'll just give you the tips. You could then use `git
> cat-file --batch-check` on both ends to see what commits from the other
> they report knowing about, in case they have branches that are
> ahead/behind the other.
I am not sure how you are e
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Wink Saville writes:
>
>> Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes
>> it directly after sourcing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
>> ---
>> git-rebase--interactive.sh | 11 ---
>> git-rebase.sh
On Thu, Mar 22 2018, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> What is the most efficient way to test if repoA and repoB share common
> commits? My goal is to automatically figure out if repoB can benefit
> from setting alternates to repoA and repacking. I currently do it by
> comparing the output of "show-r
Usually, the usage should be shown only if the user does not know what
options are available. If the user specifies an invalid value, the user
is already aware of the available options. In this case, there is no
point in displaying the usage anymore.
This patch applies to "git tag --contains", "gi
Hi,
Thank you a lot for your advice! I will keep in mind your words next
time I will send a patch.
Best regards,
Paul Ungurenanu
Wink Saville writes:
> Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes
> it directly after sourcing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
> ---
> git-rebase--interactive.sh | 11 ---
> git-rebase.sh | 11 +--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 del
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
>> +__git_main_with_parseopt_helper='
>> + blame cat-file check-attr check-ignore
>> + check-mailmap checkout-index column count-objects fast-export
>> + hash-object index-pack interpret-trailers merge-file
Duy Nguyen writes:
> +__git_main_with_parseopt_helper='
> + blame cat-file check-attr check-ignore
> + check-mailmap checkout-index column count-objects fast-export
> + hash-object index-pack interpret-trailers merge-file mktree
> + pack-objects pack-refs prune prune-packed read-t
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 10:32 AM Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
>
> Hi Wink,
>
> > Please see "[RFC PATCH 0/3] rebase-interactive" and
> > "[RFC PATCH v2 0/1] rebase-interactive: ...". I'm looking for
> > advice on how to proceed.
>
> Sadly, I had almost no time to spend on the Git mailing list today,
When computing abbreviation lengths for an object ID against a single
packfile, the method find_abbrev_len_for_pack() currently implements
binary search. This is one of several implementations. One issue with
this implementation is that it ignores the fanout table in the pack-
index.
Translate thi
Thanks to Jonathan and Brian for the help with the proper way to handle
OIDs and existing callers to bsearch_hash(). This patch includes one
commit that Brian sent in the previous discussion (included again here
for completeness).
Derrick Stolee (2):
packfile: define and use bsearch_pack()
sha
The method bsearch_hash() generalizes binary searches using a
fanout table. The only consumer is currently find_pack_entry_one().
It requires a bit of pointer arithmetic to align the fanout table
and the lookup table depending on the pack-index version.
Extract the pack-index pointer arithmetic to
From: "brian m. carlson"
This structure is only written to in one place, where we already have a
struct object_id. Convert the struct to use a struct object_id instead.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson
---
sha1_name.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sh
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
> >> And that pattern repeats throughout the patch. I wonder if we can
> >> express the same a lot more concisely by updating the caller that
> >> calls these command specific helpers?
> >
> > Yeah. I almost w
Hi Wink,
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:
> I plead guilty to being the preson refactoring --preserve-merges. But
> after reading this and seeing that --recreate-merges is coming and
> possibly git-rebase--* moving to C I'm worried I'd be messing things up.
Don't worry. We will just work
Duy Nguyen writes:
>> And that pattern repeats throughout the patch. I wonder if we can
>> express the same a lot more concisely by updating the caller that
>> calls these command specific helpers?
>
> Yeah. I almost went to just generate and eval these functions. But we
> still need to keep a l
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 3:16 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> The established way to update the completion script in an already
> running shell is to simply source it again: this brings in any new
> --options and features, and clears caching variables. E.g. it clears
> the variables caching the list of
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>> > That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving
>> > fetches, but you could at least get out of it by r
Yuki Kokubun writes:
>> Yuki Kokubun writes:
>>
>> >> Yuki Kokubun writes:
>> >>
>> >> > "git filter-branch -- --all" can be confused when refs that refer to
>> >> > objects
>> >> > other than commits or tags exists.
>> ...
>
> I meant the confusion is abnormal messages from the output of "g
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 432 ++---
1 file changed, 215 insertions(+), 217 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
index 213d75f43..a79330f45 100644
--- a/git-rebase--interactive
Since git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges is now always called with
$preserve_merges = t we can remove the unused code paths.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 152 -
1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
di
Since git_rebase__interactive is now never called with
$preserve_merges = t we can remove those code paths.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 95 ++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--i
Use initiate_action, setup_reflog_action, init_basic_state,
init_revisions_and_shortrevisions and complete_action.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 187 ++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-r
merges_option is unused in git_rebase__interactive and always empty in
git_rebase__interactive__preserve_merges so it can be removed.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 10 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.s
The extracted functions are:
- initiate_action
- setup_reflog_action
- init_basic_state
- init_revisions_and_shortrevisions
- complete_action
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 211 +
1 file changed, 211 insertions(+
At the moment it's an exact copy of git_rebase__interactive except
the name has changed.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 108 +
git-rebase.sh | 7 ++-
2 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -
I've incorporated review feed back to date. I'm split the change
into 9 commits with each commit do a single class of operation.
I've prepared these commits using github and have Travis-CI setup to
test my changes. Of the 9 commits 2 failed, the 1st and 5th commits, I
tested those two locally and
Instead of indirectly invoking git_rebase__interactive this invokes
it directly after sourcing.
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 11 ---
git-rebase.sh | 11 +--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--in
Signed-off-by: Wink Saville
---
git-rebase--interactive.sh | 17 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-rebase--interactive.sh b/git-rebase--interactive.sh
index 331c8dfea..561e2660e 100644
--- a/git-rebase--interactive.sh
+++ b/git-rebase--interactiv
I meant to say that I installed 2.17.0-rc0, and it worked perfectly. Sorry for
the ambiguity.
-Original Message-
From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:jch2...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Junio C Hamano
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:39 PM
To: Johannes Schindelin
Cc: Joseph Strauss ; git@vger.kerne
Phillip Wood writes:
> On 20/03/18 19:32, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> With or without the above plan, what we saw from you were a bit
>> messy to queue. The --keep-empty fix series is based on 'maint',
>> while the --signoff series depends on changes that happened to
>> sequencer between 'maint'
Hi, all:
What is the most efficient way to test if repoA and repoB share common
commits? My goal is to automatically figure out if repoB can benefit
from setting alternates to repoA and repacking. I currently do it by
comparing the output of "show-ref --tags -s", but that does not work for
repos w
I'm getting this error on a fresh install of git version 2.16.2.windows.1:
fatal: UriFormatException encountered.
queryUrl
See this post I found,
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48775400/git-fatal-uriformatexception-encountered-actualurl
for more details. Note that the latest comments a
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Joseph Strauss wrote:
>
>> Perfect. Thank you.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> I am puzzled, though... does your message mean that you tested the Git for
> Windows v2.17.0-rc0 installer and it did fix your problem? Or do you
> simply assume that it does
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> David Pursehouse writes:
>>
>> > From: David Pursehouse
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: David Pursehouse
>> > ---
>>
>> I somehow had to stare at the patch for a few minutes, view it in
>> two Emacs buffers and run M-x co
> Yuki Kokubun writes:
>
> >> Yuki Kokubun writes:
> >>
> >> > "git filter-branch -- --all" can be confused when refs that refer to
> >> > objects
> >> > other than commits or tags exists.
> >> > Because "git rev-parse --all" that is internally used can return refs
> >> > that
> >> > refer to
The established way to update the completion script in an already
running shell is to simply source it again: this brings in any new
--options and features, and clears caching variables. E.g. it clears
the variables caching the list of (all|porcelain) git commands, so
when they are later lazy-init
Il 21/03/2018 22:50, Johannes Schindelin ha scritto:
Hi Michele,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Michele Locati wrote:
[...]
--
2.16.2.windows.1
Yay!
Out of curiosity: did the CONTRIBUTING.md file help that was recently
turned into a guide how to contribute to Git (for Windows) by Derrick
Stolee?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:27AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving
> > fetches, but you could at least get out of it by running "git repack".
>
> I was puzzled by this "broken st
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:59:31AM +, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > +sub handle_line {
> > + my $orig = shift;
> > + local $_ = $orig;
> > +
> > + # match a graph line that begins a commit
> > + if (/^(?:$COLOR?\|$COLOR?[ ])* # zero or more leading "|" with space
> > +$COLOR?\*$C
On 20/03/18 19:32, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phillip Wood writes:
>
>> On 20/03/18 15:42, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> ...
>>> As indicated in another reply, I'd rather rebase the --recreate-merges
>>> patches on top of your --keep-empty patch series. This obviously means
>>> that I would fold ess
On 21/03/18 05:59, Jeff King wrote:
> This patch fixes a corner case where diff-highlight may
> scramble some diffs when combined with --graph.
>
> Commit 7e4ffb4c17 (diff-highlight: add support for --graph
> output, 2016-08-29) taught diff-highlight to skip past the
> graph characters at the star
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> That would still mean you could get into a broken state for serving
> fetches, but you could at least get out of it by running "git repack".
I was puzzled by this "broken state" statement. But you were right! I
focused on the repack case and fo
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > I wish you were right about the rarity, but it's unfortunately something
> > I have seen multiple times in the wild (and why I spent time optimizing
> > the many-packs case for pack-objects). Unfortunately I don't know how
> > often i
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:32:12AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> So 27% of the total heap goes away if you switch to a separate rev-list.
> Though it's mostly just going to a different process, it does help peak
> because that process would have exited by the time we get to the
> revindex bits.
>
> I
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:59:19PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > I hate to be a wet blanket, but am I the only one who is wondering
> > whether the tradeoffs is worth it? 8% memory reduction doesn't seem
> > mind-bogglingly good,
>
> AEvar measured RSS. If we count objects[] array alone, the savin
From:MR.RICHARD SANDOO.
Bill and Exchange Manager
Micro Finance Bank Plc
Burkina Faso
Dear Friend,
I know that this mail will come to you as a surprise. I am MR.RICHARD
SANDOO. and I am the bill and Exchange manager in a Bank here in my
country .I Hope that you will not expose or betray this tr
On Wed, Mar 21 2018, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote:
> So, I'm not sure we have a route to get UTF-8-clean data out of Git, and if
> we do it is beyond the scope of this patch series.
>
> So I think for our uses here, defining this as "JSON-like" is probably the
> best answer. We write the strings
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > [...]Yes, having that many packs is insane, but that's going to be
>> > small consolation to somebody whose automated maintenance program now
>> > craps out at 16k pa
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 05:31:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > [...]Yes, having that many packs is insane, but that's going to be
> > small consolation to somebody whose automated maintenance program now
> > craps out at 16k packs, when it previously would have just worked to
> > fix
hi Git
https://goo.gl/RLDyn8
Bbenta
78 matches
Mail list logo
