From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>,
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch & tag: Add a --no-contains option
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 05:09:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170309100910.z4h7bwqzxw2xynyu@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170308202025.17900-1-avarab@gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:20:25PM +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Change the branch & tag commands to have a --no-contains option in
> addition to their longstanding --contains options.
>
> The use-case I have for this is mainly to find the last-good rollout
> tag given a known-bad <commit>. Right given a hypothetically bad
> commit v2.10.1-3-gcf5c7253e0 now you can find that with this hacky
> one-liner:
>
> (./git tag -l 'v[0-9]*'; ./git tag -l 'v[0-9]*' --contains v2.10.1-3-gcf5c7253e0)|sort|uniq -c|grep -E '^ *1 '|awk '{print $2}'
>
> But with the --no-contains option you can now get the exact same
> output with:
>
> ./git tag -l 'v[0-9]*' --no-contains v2.10.1-3-gcf5c7253e0 | sort
I think that's a good goal.
I'm not sure about the name. I would have expected "--no-contains" to
reset the list of "--contains" commits to the empty set. That's an
option convention we've been slowly moving towards (e.g., with
OPT_STRING_LIST).
What you've added here _does_ match "--no-merged", though. I'm not sure
of the best way forward. At the very least, "--no-contains" is currently
an error, so you would not be changing existing behavior.
> Once I'd implemented this for "tag" it was easy enough to add it for
> "branch". I haven't added it to "for-each-ref" but that would be
> trivial if anyone cares, but that use-case would be even more obscure
> than adding it to "branch", so I haven't bothered.
I'd prefer to have it consistently in all three. We should be able to
tell people to use for-each-ref in their scripts, and that's harder if
it is missing features.
> The "describe" command also has a --contains option, but its semantics
> are unrelated to what tag/branch/for-each-ref use --contains for, and
> I don't see how a --no-contains option for it would make any sense.
Yeah, I think that feature is orthogonal.
> -static int commit_contains(struct ref_filter *filter, struct commit *commit)
> +static int commit_contains(struct ref_filter *filter, struct commit *commit, const int with_commit)
> {
> + struct commit_list *tmp = with_commit ? filter->with_commit : filter->no_commit;
> if (filter->with_commit_tag_algo)
> - return contains_tag_algo(commit, filter->with_commit);
> - return is_descendant_of(commit, filter->with_commit);
> + return contains_tag_algo(commit, tmp);
> + return is_descendant_of(commit, tmp);
> }
Perhaps it would be simpler if the caller just passed the right
commit_list rather than a flag. We unfortunately do still need to pass
the "filter" (for the algorithm field), but the caller is then:
if (filter->with_commit &&
!commit_contains(filter, filter->with_commit, commit))
return 0;
if (filter->no_commit &&
commit_contains(filter, filter->no_commit, commit))
return 0;
which avoids the 0/1 flag whose meaning is not immediately apparent at
the callsite. One day we can hopefully unify the two algorithms and
ditch the extra filter parameter.
I almost suggested that there simply be an option to invert the match
(like --invert-contains or something). But what you have here is more
flexible, if somebody ever wanted to do:
git tag --contains X --no-contains Y
That could be useful if a feature was introduced in X and then got buggy
in Y.
> @@ -1708,8 +1782,91 @@ run_with_limited_stack () {
>
> test_lazy_prereq ULIMIT_STACK_SIZE 'run_with_limited_stack true'
>
> +# These are all the tags we've created above
> +cat >expect.no-contains <<EOF
> [...80 tags...]
> +EOF
That's a lot of tags, and I'd worry it makes the test a little brittle.
Can we limit the set of tags with a name-match? It shouldn't affect the
purpose of the test (the deep stack comes from traversing the commits,
not the number of tags).
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-09 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-08 20:20 [PATCH] branch & tag: Add a --no-contains option Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-08 23:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 10:09 ` Jeff King [this message]
2017-03-09 10:41 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-09 10:46 ` Jeff King
2017-03-09 12:12 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-09 12:51 ` Jeff King
2017-03-09 13:27 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix object flag pollution in "tag --contains" Jeff King
2017-03-09 13:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] ref-filter: move ref_cbdata definition into ref-filter.c Jeff King
2017-03-09 13:28 ` [PATCH 2/4] ref-filter: use contains_result enum consistently Jeff King
2017-03-09 13:29 ` [PATCH 3/4] ref-filter: die on parse_commit errors Jeff King
2017-03-09 13:29 ` [PATCH 4/4] ref-filter: use separate cache for contains_tag_algo Jeff King
2017-03-11 20:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-11 20:21 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-12 11:12 ` Jeff King
2017-03-11 13:06 ` [PATCH 0/4] fix object flag pollution in "tag --contains" Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-11 20:18 ` [PATCH v4] ref-filter: Add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-12 4:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-12 9:10 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-12 17:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-03-09 14:52 ` [PATCH] branch & tag: Add a --no-contains option Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-09 14:55 ` Jeff King
2017-03-10 11:31 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-09 20:02 ` [PATCH v2] ref-filter: Add --no-contains option to tag/branch/for-each-ref Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-09 20:31 ` Christian Couder
2017-03-10 11:46 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-10 12:09 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-03-10 20:33 ` [PATCH v3] " Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170309100910.z4h7bwqzxw2xynyu@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=hjemli@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).