git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
@ 2019-09-02 23:41 Warren He
  2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-02 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Warren He

Sometimes people have to rebase multiple related branches. One way to do that
quickly, when there are branches pointing to ancestors of a later branch (which
happens a lot if you try hard to pad your PR count on GitHub--I mean if you try
to make small, logically separate changes), is to rebase that later branch and
then reset ancestor branches to the rewritten commits. You just have to work
out which branches correspond to which of the new commits.

Here's an automated way to update those ancestor branches.

It's implemented as a function that processes a todo list, modeled after
`todo_list_add_exec_commands`. Currently steps are added as `exec git branch -f
<branchname>`, which comes with the caveat that they're not applied atomically
when it finishes rebasing.

If you were to use this feature to rebase `my-dev` onto `master` in this
situation:

```
 A - B          (master)
  |\
  |  E          (feat-e)
   \   \
     F  |       (feat-f)
       \|
         G      (interim)
           \
             H  (my-dev)
```

you'd get a todo list like this:

```
label onto

# Branch G
reset onto
pick 65945ab E
exec git branch -f feat-e
label G

reset onto
pick 4f0b0ad F
exec git branch -f feat-f
merge -C e50066c G # G
exec git branch -f interim
pick 539e556 H
```

Warren He (1):
  rebase: introduce --update-branches option

 Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  8 +++++
 builtin/rebase.c                  | 13 ++++++--
 sequencer.c                       | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 sequencer.h                       |  6 ++--
 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh

-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-02 23:41 [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option Warren He
@ 2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
  2019-09-03 13:26   ` Johannes Schindelin
  2019-09-03  0:50 ` [PATCH] " brian m. carlson
  2019-09-03 12:19 ` Phillip Wood
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-02 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Warren He

Rebasing normally updates the current branch to the rewritten version.
If any other branches point to commits rewritten along the way, those
remain untouched. This commit adds an `--update-branches` option, which
instructs the command to update any such branches that it encounters to
point to the rewritten versions of those commits.

Signed-off-by: Warren He <wh109@yahoo.com>
---
 Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  8 +++++
 builtin/rebase.c                  | 13 ++++++--
 sequencer.c                       | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 sequencer.h                       |  6 ++--
 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh

diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 6156609..c37a0db 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -246,6 +246,13 @@ leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD.
 +
 See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 
+--update-branches::
+	If there are branch refs that point to commits that will be
+	reapplied, add shell commands to the todo list to update those
+	refs to point to the commits in the final history.
++
+See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
+
 --allow-empty-message::
 	By default, rebasing commits with an empty message will fail.
 	This option overrides that behavior, allowing commits with empty
@@ -535,6 +542,7 @@ are incompatible with the following options:
  * --interactive
  * --exec
  * --keep-empty
+ * --update-branches
  * --edit-todo
  * --root when used in combination with --onto
 
diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
index 670096c..cf87c53 100644
--- a/builtin/rebase.c
+++ b/builtin/rebase.c
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct rebase_options {
 	int signoff;
 	int allow_rerere_autoupdate;
 	int keep_empty;
+	int update_branches;
 	int autosquash;
 	char *gpg_sign_opt;
 	int autostash;
@@ -349,8 +350,8 @@ static int do_interactive_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts, unsigned flags)
 
 		split_exec_commands(opts->cmd, &commands);
 		ret = complete_action(the_repository, &replay, flags,
-			shortrevisions, opts->onto_name, opts->onto, head_hash,
-			&commands, opts->autosquash, &todo_list);
+			shortrevisions, opts->onto_name, opts->onto, opts->head_name,
+			head_hash, &commands, opts->autosquash, &todo_list);
 	}
 
 	string_list_clear(&commands, 0);
@@ -375,6 +376,7 @@ static int run_rebase_interactive(struct rebase_options *opts,
 	flags |= opts->rebase_merges ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_MERGES : 0;
 	flags |= opts->rebase_cousins > 0 ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_COUSINS : 0;
 	flags |= command == ACTION_SHORTEN_OIDS ? TODO_LIST_SHORTEN_IDS : 0;
+	flags |= opts->update_branches ? TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES : 0;
 
 	switch (command) {
 	case ACTION_NONE: {
@@ -447,6 +449,8 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		OPT_NEGBIT(0, "ff", &opts.flags, N_("allow fast-forward"),
 			   REBASE_FORCE),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "keep-empty", &opts.keep_empty, N_("keep empty commits")),
+		OPT_BOOL(0, "update-branches", &opts.update_branches,
+			 N_("update branches that point to reapplied commits")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "allow-empty-message", &opts.allow_empty_message,
 			 N_("allow commits with empty messages")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "rebase-merges", &opts.rebase_merges, N_("rebase merge commits")),
@@ -1453,6 +1457,8 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE(&options.allow_rerere_autoupdate),
 		OPT_BOOL('k', "keep-empty", &options.keep_empty,
 			 N_("preserve empty commits during rebase")),
+		OPT_BOOL(0, "update-branches", &options.update_branches,
+			 N_("update branches that point to reapplied commits")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "autosquash", &options.autosquash,
 			 N_("move commits that begin with "
 			    "squash!/fixup! under -i")),
@@ -1710,6 +1716,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	if (options.keep_empty)
 		imply_interactive(&options, "--keep-empty");
 
+	if (options.update_branches)
+		imply_interactive(&options, "--update-branches");
+
 	if (gpg_sign) {
 		free(options.gpg_sign_opt);
 		options.gpg_sign_opt = xstrfmt("-S%s", gpg_sign);
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 34ebf8e..c6749ff 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -4901,6 +4901,69 @@ void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
 	todo_list->alloc = alloc;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Add commands to update branch refs after the todo list would pick a commit
+ * that a branch ref points to.
+ */
+static void todo_list_add_branch_updates(struct todo_list *todo_list,
+				       const char *head_name)
+{
+	struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list->buf;
+	int i, nr = 0, alloc = 0;
+	struct todo_item *items = NULL;
+
+	load_ref_decorations(NULL, 0);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < todo_list->nr; i++) {
+		const struct todo_item *item = &todo_list->items[i];
+		enum todo_command command = item->command;
+		const struct name_decoration *decoration;
+
+		ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
+		items[nr++] = todo_list->items[i];
+
+		switch (command) {
+		case TODO_PICK:
+		case TODO_MERGE:
+			break;
+		default:
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		decoration = get_name_decoration(&item->commit->object);
+		for (; decoration; decoration = decoration->next) {
+			size_t base_offset, pretty_name_len;
+			const char *pretty_name;
+
+			if (decoration->type != DECORATION_REF_LOCAL)
+				continue;
+			if (!strcmp(decoration->name, head_name))
+				// Rebase itself will update the current branch for us.
+				continue;
+
+			base_offset = buf->len;
+			pretty_name = prettify_refname(decoration->name);
+			pretty_name_len = strlen(pretty_name);
+			strbuf_addstr(buf, "exec git branch -f ");
+			strbuf_addstr(buf, pretty_name);
+			strbuf_addch(buf, '\n');
+
+			ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
+			items[nr++] = (struct todo_item) {
+				.command = TODO_EXEC,
+				.offset_in_buf = base_offset,
+				.arg_offset = base_offset + strlen("exec "),
+				.arg_len = strlen("git branch -f ") + pretty_name_len,
+			};
+		}
+	}
+
+	FREE_AND_NULL(todo_list->items);
+	todo_list->items = items;
+	todo_list->nr = nr;
+	todo_list->alloc = alloc;
+}
+
 static void todo_list_to_strbuf(struct repository *r, struct todo_list *todo_list,
 				struct strbuf *buf, int num, unsigned flags)
 {
@@ -5051,7 +5114,7 @@ static int skip_unnecessary_picks(struct repository *r,
 
 int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned flags,
 		    const char *shortrevisions, const char *onto_name,
-		    struct commit *onto, const char *orig_head,
+		    struct commit *onto, const char *head_name, const char *orig_head,
 		    struct string_list *commands, unsigned autosquash,
 		    struct todo_list *todo_list)
 {
@@ -5076,6 +5139,9 @@ int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned fla
 	if (commands->nr)
 		todo_list_add_exec_commands(todo_list, commands);
 
+	if (flags & TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES)
+		todo_list_add_branch_updates(todo_list, head_name);
+
 	if (count_commands(todo_list) == 0) {
 		apply_autostash(opts);
 		sequencer_remove_state(opts);
diff --git a/sequencer.h b/sequencer.h
index 6704acb..69c6f71 100644
--- a/sequencer.h
+++ b/sequencer.h
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ int sequencer_remove_state(struct replay_opts *opts);
  */
 #define TODO_LIST_REBASE_COUSINS (1U << 4)
 #define TODO_LIST_APPEND_TODO_HELP (1U << 5)
+#define TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES (1U << 6)
 
 int sequencer_make_script(struct repository *r, struct strbuf *out, int argc,
 			  const char **argv, unsigned flags);
@@ -152,8 +153,9 @@ void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
 int check_todo_list_from_file(struct repository *r);
 int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned flags,
 		    const char *shortrevisions, const char *onto_name,
-		    struct commit *onto, const char *orig_head, struct string_list *commands,
-		    unsigned autosquash, struct todo_list *todo_list);
+		    struct commit *onto, const char *head_name, const char *orig_head,
+		    struct string_list *commands, unsigned autosquash,
+		    struct todo_list *todo_list);
 int todo_list_rearrange_squash(struct todo_list *todo_list);
 
 /*
diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..221c25d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+test_description='git rebase -i --update-branches
+
+This test runs git rebase, moving branch refs that point to commits
+that are reapplied.
+
+Initial setup:
+
+ A - B          (master)
+  |\
+  |  C          (linear-early)
+  |    \
+  |      D      (linear-late)
+  |\
+  |  E          (feat-e)
+   \   \
+     F  |       (feat-f)
+       \|
+         G      (interim)
+           \
+             H  (my-dev)
+'
+. ./test-lib.sh
+
+test_expect_success 'setup linear' '
+	test_commit A &&
+	test_commit B &&
+	git checkout -b linear-early A &&
+	test_commit C &&
+	git checkout -b linear-late &&
+	test_commit D
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'smoketest linear' '
+	git rebase --update-branches master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'check linear' '
+	git rev-parse linear-early:B.t
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'setup merge' '
+	git checkout -b feat-e A &&
+	test_commit E &&
+	git checkout -b feat-f A &&
+	test_commit F &&
+	git checkout -b interim &&
+	test_merge G feat-e &&
+	git checkout -b my-dev &&
+	test_commit H
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'smoketest merge' '
+	git rebase -r --update-branches master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'check merge' '
+	git rev-parse feat-e:B.t &&
+	git rev-parse feat-f:B.t &&
+	git rev-parse interim:B.t
+'
+
+test_done
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-02 23:41 [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option Warren He
  2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
@ 2019-09-03  0:50 ` " brian m. carlson
  2019-09-03  1:21   ` Junio C Hamano
  2019-09-03 12:19 ` Phillip Wood
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: brian m. carlson @ 2019-09-03  0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren He; +Cc: git, Warren He

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2032 bytes --]

On 2019-09-02 at 23:41:08, Warren He wrote:
> Sometimes people have to rebase multiple related branches. One way to do that
> quickly, when there are branches pointing to ancestors of a later branch (which
> happens a lot if you try hard to pad your PR count on GitHub--I mean if you try
> to make small, logically separate changes), is to rebase that later branch and
> then reset ancestor branches to the rewritten commits. You just have to work
> out which branches correspond to which of the new commits.
> 
> Here's an automated way to update those ancestor branches.
> 
> It's implemented as a function that processes a todo list, modeled after
> `todo_list_add_exec_commands`. Currently steps are added as `exec git branch -f
> <branchname>`, which comes with the caveat that they're not applied atomically
> when it finishes rebasing.

This is an interesting idea, and I definitely would find myself using
it.  I maintain multiple nested branches for the SHA-256 transition and
rebasing tends to be a bit of a hassle.  The idea of reordering commits
further down into earlier branches using this technique is also
appealing.

I like the idea of using existing tooling for this and not needing an
additional verb.

My gut tells me folks may want a bit more control over *which* branches
are rebased, but I don't have a personal need for that, so I'm not going
to request it or propose an interface for it.  If nobody else does, then
I think we should adopt the simplest approach, which is what you've
proposed.  Users can always edit the todo list if they find an
unexpected branch, after all.

The other thought I had about this is a question about how it performs
with many refs.  I've worked with a repository with easily 80,000 refs,
and I wonder if the current technique will perform adequately there.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions on this series and am looking
forward to seeing it progress.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 868 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-03  0:50 ` [PATCH] " brian m. carlson
@ 2019-09-03  1:21   ` Junio C Hamano
  2019-09-03  1:39     ` Taylor Blau
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-09-03  1:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: brian m. carlson; +Cc: Warren He, git, Warren He

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:

> I like the idea of using existing tooling for this and not needing an
> additional verb.
>
> My gut tells me folks may want a bit more control over *which* branches
> are rebased, but I don't have a personal need for that, so I'm not going
> to request it or propose an interface for it.

FWIW, I am in favor of both of the above two points.  It is quite
clear because "exec git branch -f <that branch name>" is spelled
out, people can remove the ones they want to keep a copy of when
they need to.

I didn't look at the code more deeply than just eyeballing and
noticing style violations etc., and will leave the reviewing to
others for now.

Thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-03  1:21   ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2019-09-03  1:39     ` Taylor Blau
  2019-09-07 23:41       ` Warren He
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Taylor Blau @ 2019-09-03  1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: brian m. carlson, Warren He, git, Warren He

Hi Junio,

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:21:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> > I like the idea of using existing tooling for this and not needing an
> > additional verb.
> >
> > My gut tells me folks may want a bit more control over *which* branches
> > are rebased, but I don't have a personal need for that, so I'm not going
> > to request it or propose an interface for it.
>
> FWIW, I am in favor of both of the above two points.  It is quite
> clear because "exec git branch -f <that branch name>" is spelled
> out, people can remove the ones they want to keep a copy of when
> they need to.

I agree with what you're saying here. I don't see myself having a need
to modify the 'exec git branch -f ...' line, so I have no real need to
make an interface suggestion per brian's comment above, but I happened
to think of one while reading this thread that seemed worth pointing
out.

Perhaps we could avoid inserting the 'exec git branch -f' step in the
todo list for branches that have a configuration section forbidding them
from being updated?

For example, the configuration:

  [branch "dont-update-me"]
    updateAfterRebase = false

would cause the rebase of a branch upstream from 'dont-update-me' to
omit the 'git branch -f dont-update-me'.

To be honest, this configuration option seems like a knob we don't need.
Especially since now three of us feel that removing the 'exec' line
suffices anyway. I suppose that I could see a user wanting some
integration branch to not get updated over many rebases, but it seems a
little contrived.

Anyway, perhaps others can chime in and share what they think about this
interface and whether or not we need it. If not, we can simply file this
away.

> I didn't look at the code more deeply than just eyeballing and
> noticing style violations etc., and will leave the reviewing to
> others for now.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks,
Taylor

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-02 23:41 [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option Warren He
  2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
  2019-09-03  0:50 ` [PATCH] " brian m. carlson
@ 2019-09-03 12:19 ` Phillip Wood
  2019-09-07 23:43   ` Warren He
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Wood @ 2019-09-03 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren He, git
  Cc: Warren He, Junio C Hamano, Brian M. Carlson, Johannes Schindelin,
	Taylor Blau

Hi Warren

On 03/09/2019 00:41, Warren He wrote:
> Sometimes people have to rebase multiple related branches. One way to do that
> quickly, when there are branches pointing to ancestors of a later branch (which
> happens a lot if you try hard to pad your PR count on GitHub--I mean if you try
> to make small, logically separate changes), is to rebase that later branch and
> then reset ancestor branches to the rewritten commits. You just have to work
> out which branches correspond to which of the new commits.
> 
> Here's an automated way to update those ancestor branches.

I think this would be really useful, but as it is implemented here it 
only updates branch heads that are in the todo list. This means that if 
I have a branch structure like

A - B (master)
|
C - E (topic-2)
|
D (topic-1)

and I do `git rebase --update-branches master topic1` Then topic-2 will 
not be updated and if I do `git rebase --update-branches master topic2` 
then topic-1 will not be updated even though C is updated in both cases 
and is a common ancestor of topic-1 and topic-2. Conceptually to update 
all the branches descended from a rewritten commit would require using 
`git for-each-ref --contains $(git merge-base <upstream> <branch>)` and 
then using `git rev-list <upstream>..<branch-head>` on each of those 
refs to get the commits to generate the todo list.

Another case is applying fixup commits. In the example above if I squash 
a fixup for C from either branch I probably want to update both the 
branches descended from it.

One other thing is that if the user aborts the rebase then ideally we 
don't want to update all the branches so it would be better to store the 
updated heads as we go along and then update them all at the end of the 
rebase. Worktrees add another complication as if one of the branches 
that is to be updated is checked out in another worktree then we need 
some way to deal with that. If there are no local changes in that 
worktree then we could just update the local HEAD and working copy.

Best Wishes

Phillip

> 
> It's implemented as a function that processes a todo list, modeled after
> `todo_list_add_exec_commands`. Currently steps are added as `exec git branch -f
> <branchname>`, which comes with the caveat that they're not applied atomically
> when it finishes rebasing.
> 
> If you were to use this feature to rebase `my-dev` onto `master` in this
> situation:
> 
> ```
>   A - B          (master)
>    |\
>    |  E          (feat-e)
>     \   \
>       F  |       (feat-f)
>         \|
>           G      (interim)
>             \
>               H  (my-dev)
> ```
> 
> you'd get a todo list like this:
> 
> ```
> label onto
> 
> # Branch G
> reset onto
> pick 65945ab E
> exec git branch -f feat-e
> label G
> 
> reset onto
> pick 4f0b0ad F
> exec git branch -f feat-f
> merge -C e50066c G # G
> exec git branch -f interim
> pick 539e556 H
> ```
> 
> Warren He (1):
>    rebase: introduce --update-branches option
> 
>   Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  8 +++++
>   builtin/rebase.c                  | 13 ++++++--
>   sequencer.c                       | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   sequencer.h                       |  6 ++--
>   t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   5 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
@ 2019-09-03 13:26   ` Johannes Schindelin
  2019-09-07 23:44     ` [PATCH v2] " Warren He
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2019-09-03 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren He; +Cc: git, Warren He

Hi Warren,

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Warren He wrote:

> Rebasing normally updates the current branch to the rewritten version.
> If any other branches point to commits rewritten along the way, those
> remain untouched. This commit adds an `--update-branches` option, which
> instructs the command to update any such branches that it encounters to
> point to the rewritten versions of those commits.

This is definitely a feature I longed for, myself. I worked around it by
using some complicated vim command (I think it was something like
`%s/^label (.*)/&^Mexec git update-ref refs/heads/\1 HEAD` or some such,
where the `^M` is actually typed via Ctrl+V Ctrl+M, and of course, this
does not take existing branches into account, but updates refs based on
the merge commits' onelines).

Once `--update-branches` is available, I will want to use it e.g. for my
work on the built-in `git add -i`, where I have to update 6
inter-dependent PRs in parallel.

A couple of suggestions below. (If you are like me, trying to address
all the suggestions while reading the code review, I would like to
suggest reading all the way through to the end first, it might save you
some work.)

> [...]
> diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
> index 670096c..cf87c53 100644
> --- a/builtin/rebase.c
> +++ b/builtin/rebase.c
> @@ -447,6 +449,8 @@ int cmd_rebase__interactive(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		OPT_NEGBIT(0, "ff", &opts.flags, N_("allow fast-forward"),
>  			   REBASE_FORCE),
>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "keep-empty", &opts.keep_empty, N_("keep empty commits")),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "update-branches", &opts.update_branches,
> +			 N_("update branches that point to reapplied commits")),

Maybe `s/reapplied/rebased/`?

Also, seeing as the `cmd_rebase__interactive()` is only used by `git
rebase --preserve-merges`, which cannot make use of `--update-branches`
anyway, I would suggest to simply drop this hunk and only keep the next
one.

>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "allow-empty-message", &opts.allow_empty_message,
>  			 N_("allow commits with empty messages")),
>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "rebase-merges", &opts.rebase_merges, N_("rebase merge commits")),
> @@ -1453,6 +1457,8 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE(&options.allow_rerere_autoupdate),
>  		OPT_BOOL('k', "keep-empty", &options.keep_empty,
>  			 N_("preserve empty commits during rebase")),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "update-branches", &options.update_branches,
> +			 N_("update branches that point to reapplied commits")),
>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "autosquash", &options.autosquash,
>  			 N_("move commits that begin with "
>  			    "squash!/fixup! under -i")),
> @@ -1710,6 +1716,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  	if (options.keep_empty)
>  		imply_interactive(&options, "--keep-empty");
>
> +	if (options.update_branches)
> +		imply_interactive(&options, "--update-branches");

It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges`.
Imagine for example this call:

	git rebase --update-branches @{u}

This would not even be interactive (even if it uses the interactive
rebase backend to execute), but it would have to rebase the merge
commits. So I think we need something like this instead:

	if (options.update_branches && !options.rebase_merges) {
		if (options.type == REBASE_UNSPECIFIED)
			options.type = REBASE_INTERACTIVE;
		else if (options.type != REBASE_INTERACTIVE)
			die(_("%s requires an interactive rebase"),
			    "--update-branches");
		options.rebase_merges = 1;
	}

I don't think we can use `imply_interactive()` here because that would
also allow `--update-branches` to be combined with `--preserve-merges`
(which does not work, and as the latter is deprecated, I would advise
against trying to make it work, either).

> +
>  	if (gpg_sign) {
>  		free(options.gpg_sign_opt);
>  		options.gpg_sign_opt = xstrfmt("-S%s", gpg_sign);
> [...]
> diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> index 34ebf8e..c6749ff 100644
> --- a/sequencer.c
> +++ b/sequencer.c
> @@ -4901,6 +4901,69 @@ void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
>  	todo_list->alloc = alloc;
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * Add commands to update branch refs after the todo list would pick a commit
> + * that a branch ref points to.
> + */
> +static void todo_list_add_branch_updates(struct todo_list *todo_list,
> +				       const char *head_name)
> +{
> +	struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list->buf;
> +	int i, nr = 0, alloc = 0;
> +	struct todo_item *items = NULL;
> +
> +	load_ref_decorations(NULL, 0);

This loads also tags, correct? I am fairly certain that we don't want to
update tags here, but maybe the check for `DECORATION_REF_LOCAL` later
on already ensures that?

> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < todo_list->nr; i++) {
> +		const struct todo_item *item = &todo_list->items[i];
> +		enum todo_command command = item->command;
> +		const struct name_decoration *decoration;
> +
> +		ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
> +		items[nr++] = todo_list->items[i];
> +
> +		switch (command) {
> +		case TODO_PICK:
> +		case TODO_MERGE:
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			continue;
> +		}

I think this misses the `edit` and `reword` commands. How about using
`is_pick_or_similar()` instead?

Of course, there is one slight problem with that: you would _also_ have
to call `is_fixup()` and delay the addition of the corresponding branch
updates (you don't want to apply multiple `fixup` commits and possibly
point a local branch to an already fixed-up commit).

> +
> +		decoration = get_name_decoration(&item->commit->object);
> +		for (; decoration; decoration = decoration->next) {
> +			size_t base_offset, pretty_name_len;
> +			const char *pretty_name;
> +
> +			if (decoration->type != DECORATION_REF_LOCAL)
> +				continue;
> +			if (!strcmp(decoration->name, head_name))
> +				// Rebase itself will update the current branch for us.

Please use C-style /* ... */ comments, Git insists on not using
C++-style // comments.

> +				continue;

My instant reaction was: just compare `&item->commit->object.oid` to
`head_hash`, but your code is careful to take care of the scenario where
multiple local branches point to the pre-rebase `HEAD`. Good. Maybe you
want to test for that in the regression test, too?

However, you have two `if` conditions that both guard the same
operation: `continue`. How about combining the combinations? It's like
saying: under these circumstances, we skip adding a command.

> +
> +			base_offset = buf->len;
> +			pretty_name = prettify_refname(decoration->name);
> +			pretty_name_len = strlen(pretty_name);
> +			strbuf_addstr(buf, "exec git branch -f ");
> +			strbuf_addstr(buf, pretty_name);
> +			strbuf_addch(buf, '\n');
> +
> +			ALLOC_GROW(items, nr + 1, alloc);
> +			items[nr++] = (struct todo_item) {
> +				.command = TODO_EXEC,
> +				.offset_in_buf = base_offset,
> +				.arg_offset = base_offset + strlen("exec "),
> +				.arg_len = strlen("git branch -f ") + pretty_name_len,
> +			};

Wow. This is the first time I see anybody trying to use this kind of
assignment: `<item> = (struct <name>) { ... }`. I don't really know that
we can expect all C compilers that are currently used to compile Git to
handle this kind of construct. So I'd rather be a little bit more
verbose and safe:

			memset(items[nr], 0, sizeof(items[nr]));
			items[nr].command = TODO_EXEC;
			[...]
			nr++;

Taking another step back, I think we should actually be super lazy here
(it's not performance-critical code, so we can save us some time
verifying correctness, at the cost of a little slower execution):

			size_t len = buf->len;
			strbuf_addf(buf, "exec git branch -f %s\n",
				    prettify_refname(decoration->name));
			parse_insn_line(r, items[nr], buf.buf,
					buf.buf + len, buf.buf + buf.len);

Come to think of it, I wonder whether you could simply use a full
`struct todo_list` instead of maintaining the `items` manually, and then
use `append_new_todo()`.

At the end, you would simply call

	SWAP(new_list.items, todo_list->items);
	SWAP(new_list.nr, todo_list->nr);
	SWAP(new_list.alloc, todo_list->alloc);
	todo_list_release(&new_list);

Now, let's talk about this command: `git branch -f <name>`. I _think_ it
is the right command to use (instead of `git update-ref`, for example),
yet I have a couple doubts about that:

- with `git update-ref <name> HEAD <old-commit>`, we could safe-guard
  against ref updates while the rebase is running. This is _not_
  possible with `git branch -f`... We would overwrite the branch, even
  if another Git process had updated it in the meantime, e.g. in a
  manually-inserted `exec` call.

- we definitely want to try our best to handle the case where the branch
  in question is currently checked out in a separate worktree. This is a
  use case that bit me in the past (with my complicated vim method of
  emulating `--update-branches`).

- If we use `git branch`, we _have_ to use the short branch name.
  However, `prettify_refname()` does not guarantee that, I don't think:
  it strips `refs/heads/` or `refs/tags/` or `refs/remotes/` _if found_.
  So I would feel a lot more comfortable with

  	if (!skip_prefix(decoration->name, "refs/heads/", &name))
		continue;

	[...]

	strbuf_addf(buf, "exec git branch -f %s\n", name);

- I actually do not know off-hand what the reflog message for the branch
  updates would be! Would it be prefixed by `rebase -i`? I think we
  should make sure that the code uses an informative reflog message, and
  definitely verify that behavior in the regression test.

- An `exec git branch -f <name>` will update that branch _immediately_.
  Even if the user runs into a road-block with the current rebase and
  decides to abandon it via `git rebase --abort`. A subsequent attempt
  at rebasing would _no longer be able_ to pick up on the local
  branches, as they would not have been rolled back.

This last point is worth dwelling on for a moment. The interactive
rebase goes out of its way to first switch to an unnamed branch, and
only update the current branch at the very end, when the rebase
succeeded. If the rebase does not succeed, i.e. if it is aborted or
quit, the current branch will not be updated. The interactive rebase is
therefore sort of "transactional": either it succeeds in its entirety,
or all changes are rolled back.

However, the way this patch is implemented, it would break that design,
because the local branches would not be updated at the very end, but
already while the transaction is still being processed, so to say.

Spontaneously, I can think of a few ways to address this:

1. Add a new todo command, or an option for the `label` command (`label
   --branch <name>`) where it would remember to update those refs upon
   successful completion, much like the file
   `<GIT-DIR>/rebase-merge/refs-to-delete` accumulates the
   `refs/rewritten/<label>` refs to delete at the end of the interactive
   rebase, and teach `todo_list_add_branch_updates()` to use it.

2. Maybe even better would be to add a `label <branch-name>` (if there
   is no such command already) instead of the `exec git branch -f`
   lines, and then add a slur of `exec git branch -f` lines at the end
   of the todo list that pick up those labels and run them through
   `update-ref` to update them. That way, if the user aborts the
   interactive rebase somewhere in the middle, the refs would not have
   been updated yet.

3. Another method would combine the approaches 1. & 2.: add an option to
   the `label` command, say, `--update-branch=<name>`, which would append
   the following line to `<GIT-DIR>/rebase-merge/branches-to-update`:

   	update <name> <old-hash>

   And then a single line would be appended to the end of the todo
   list:

   	exec git update-ref --stdin <"<GIT-DIR>/rebase-merge/branches-to-update"

   This would have the advantage of making things a bit more explicit,
   but it would break expectations when a user would add the
   `--update-branch=<name>` option manually and forgot to make sure that
   that `update-ref` line was appended to the end.

Of course, with all of those methods, you would still have to make sure
that the todo command would be inserted _after_ `fixup`/`squash` chains.

However, now that I think of it, the `fixup`/`squash` thing is actually
a pretty tricky thing to deal with in this context. Imagine this commit
graph (newest commit first):

	*   Merge branch 'fix-names'
	| \
	|  * fixup! Implement the `names` command
	|  * Document the `names` feature
	|  * Implement the `names` command
	* / Fiddle with the README.md
	o

The `fixup!` will be re-ordered before `todo_list_add_branch_updates()`
is called, yet we do not want to update the `fix-names` branch to point
to the fixed-up commit, but still to the tip of the branch!

This consideration brings me to my favorite idea so far:

4. If we were to extend the `label` command by the `--update-branch`
   option, it would be nice if we could reuse the actual branch name as
   label name. However, at this stage we no longer have access to the
   `label_oid()` function, as the todo list was generated a long time
   ago. And we would not be able to guarantee that the branch name was
   not already used as a label.

   So why not implement this feature as part of
   `make_script_with_merges()`?

   That way, we could have an initial run through the commits to see
   whether they are decorated with any local branch, and if they are,
   make sure that they get the label(s) they want.

   (The only tricky situation with that would be that you could have a
   local branch `refs/heads/<40-digit-hex>` that clashes with a `reset
   <40-digit-hex>`, which situation can arise under
   `no-rebase-cousins`.)

   The current design actually refuses to have multiple labels per OID,
   but that could be fixed easily, as there is nothing preventing us
   from declaring the `state.commit2label` to allow multiple values for
   the same key. We would simply have to record together with a label
   our wish to update a local branch under that name, e.g. by adding a
   field `unsigned update_branch:1;` to `struct label_entry`, and then
   adding the appropriate `label` commands.

   This method would also have the advantage of adding the `label`
   commands in the right location even in the `fixup!` case I
   illustrated above: the `label` command would be added before the
   `fixup` command gets reordered.

   And it would probably make more sense to _not_ require that `exec git
   update-ref [...]` line at the end of the todo list, but to perform
   the updates transparently similarly to how the `refs/rewritten/` refs
   are removed at the end of an interactive rebase.

> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	FREE_AND_NULL(todo_list->items);
> +	todo_list->items = items;
> +	todo_list->nr = nr;
> +	todo_list->alloc = alloc;
> +}
> +
>  static void todo_list_to_strbuf(struct repository *r, struct todo_list *todo_list,
>  				struct strbuf *buf, int num, unsigned flags)
>  {
> [...]
> diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..221c25d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='git rebase -i --update-branches

How about dropping that `-i`? I think this option should also work
without an explicit `--interactive`.

> +
> +This test runs git rebase, moving branch refs that point to commits
> +that are reapplied.
> +
> +Initial setup:
> +
> + A - B          (master)
> +  |\
> +  |  C          (linear-early)
> +  |    \
> +  |      D      (linear-late)
> +  |\
> +  |  E          (feat-e)
> +   \   \
> +     F  |       (feat-f)
> +       \|
> +         G      (interim)
> +           \
> +             H  (my-dev)
> +'
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup linear' '
> +	test_commit A &&
> +	test_commit B &&
> +	git checkout -b linear-early A &&
> +	test_commit C &&
> +	git checkout -b linear-late &&
> +	test_commit D
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'smoketest linear' '
> +	git rebase --update-branches master
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'check linear' '
> +	git rev-parse linear-early:B.t

I'd like to suggest this command instead:

	test_cmp_rev linear-early C

The `C` tag was created automatically by `test_commit C`, and the
`test_cmp_rev` command has the advantage of helping diagnose regressions
much better than `git rev-parse` would.

> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'setup merge' '
> +	git checkout -b feat-e A &&
> +	test_commit E &&
> +	git checkout -b feat-f A &&
> +	test_commit F &&
> +	git checkout -b interim &&
> +	test_merge G feat-e &&
> +	git checkout -b my-dev &&
> +	test_commit H
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'smoketest merge' '
> +	git rebase -r --update-branches master

Let's try to make this work without `-r`, too.

> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'check merge' '
> +	git rev-parse feat-e:B.t &&
> +	git rev-parse feat-f:B.t &&
> +	git rev-parse interim:B.t

Likewise, I would love to see `test_cmp_rev` calls here.

Thank you for working on this feature, this is exciting!

Ciao,
Johannes

> +'
> +
> +test_done
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-03  1:39     ` Taylor Blau
@ 2019-09-07 23:41       ` Warren He
  2019-09-08 18:04         ` brian m. carlson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-07 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: me, gitster, sandals; +Cc: git, pickydaemon, wh109

Brian, thanks for looking. The only thing I can come up with to say about having
lots of refs is that at least that part of this isn't brand new code. The part
that collects ref info uses the same routines as `git log --decorate`. Do you
recall how long that took in the repository with 80,000 refs?

Junio, thanks for eyeballing. Let me know if some style violations remain.

Taylor, thanks for coming up with a way to configure branches to be excluded. I
haven't worked on implementing that yet. Let's continue to watch for feedback if
people will desire this kind of control.

Using `exec git branch -f` is further discussed in the review, where there are
arguments for introducing a new todo command. I'll add some comments there when
I post a new patch set. But if someone's in favor of accepting a version of this
without that change, with the potential harm from this feature being low enough,
I'm not opposed to that either.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-03 12:19 ` Phillip Wood
@ 2019-09-07 23:43   ` Warren He
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-07 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: phillip.wood123
  Cc: Johannes.Schindelin, git, gitster, me, phillip.wood, pickydaemon,
	sandals, wh109

Phillip, thanks for the comments. Indeed other branches that are not in the todo
list are still not updated.

I'm collecting the arguments about deferring the branch updates and issue with
worktrees for discussion along with Johannes's review.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-03 13:26   ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2019-09-07 23:44     ` " Warren He
  2019-09-07 23:44       ` Warren He
  2019-09-09 10:44       ` Phillip Wood
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-07 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: johannes.schindelin; +Cc: git, pickydaemon, wh109

Everyone in this thread, thanks for your support and encouragement.

Johannes, thanks for reviewing.

> Maybe `s/reapplied/rebased/`?

Ok. I've changed most occurrences, except in Documentation/git-rebase.txt, where
the term 'reapplied' is already in use.

> drop this hunk and only keep the next one.

I didn't know that. (Actually, assume this for most of these responses.)
Dropped, thanks.

> It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges`.

`imply_interactive` doesn't fully switch on `--interactive`, i.e., causing the
editor to open. It only selects the backend, which I think we're saying is the
right thing. I've dropped the `-i` from the test description.

And we don't really have to imply --rebase-merges, in case someone would prefer
to linearize things, which who knows? Running that non-rebase-merges command in
the example scenario from my original post should give something like this:

```
 A - B              (master)
       \
         F          (feat-f)
           \ 
             E      (feat-e)
               \
                 H  (my-dev)
```

So for now I haven't moved the implementation into `make_script_with_merges`.

> This loads also tags, correct? I am fairly certain that we don't want to
> update tags here, but maybe the check for `DECORATION_REF_LOCAL` later
> on already ensures that?

Right on both points. This isn't as efficient as possible, since we're wasting
the work of loading tags and remote refs. Currently I don't know if the
performance is worth the maintainability cost of replicating most of the
`load_ref_decorations` and `get_name_decoration` family of functions and global
variables though.

> How about using `is_pick_or_similar()` instead?

That's the function I need. Although I'm not aware of anything that generates
`edit` or `reword` commands before we'll call `todo_list_add_branch_updates`. I
ended up not needing further logic with `is_fixup`. See below for the new
handling of fixup chains.

> Please use C-style /* ... */ comments, Git insists on not using
> C++-style // comments.

Thanks for pointing that out. Changed.

> your code is careful to take care of the scenario where
> multiple local branches point to the pre-rebase `HEAD`. Good. Maybe you
> want to test for that in the regression test, too?

Ah, yes I do. It is added, with `my-hotfixes` = `HEAD` -> `my-dev` in the test.

> However, you have two `if` conditions that both guard the same
> operation: `continue`. How about combining the combinations? It's like
> saying: under these circumstances, we skip adding a command.

Ok. Combined.

> [several ways to simplify how we build todo items]

I had only looked at how `todo_list_add_exec_commands` works. Let's try doing it
with a full `struct todo_list` and `parse_insn_line`. Thanks for posting these
suggestions.

> [handling `fixup`/`squash` chains]

I've moved `todo_list_add_branch_updates` to run before
`todo_list_rearrange_squash`. The rearranging pulls fixups out, causing the
branch update to "fall" onto the items before, and reinserts them between a
commit and its branch update, casing them to be included in the updated branch.
which is my opinion of the right thing to do. I've added a test about this with
the following scenario:

```
 A - B  (master)
   \
     I - J - fixup! I                 (fixup-early)
		      \
			K - fixup! J  (fixup-late)
```

which results in the following todo list with `--autosquash`:

```
pick 9eadc32 I
fixup 265fa32 fixup! I
pick a0754fc J
fixup e7d1999 fixup! J
exec git branch -f fixup-early
pick c8bc4af K
```

> I'd like to suggest [`test_cmp_rev`] instead

I've updated the test to use `test_cmp_rev`. It's not with your suggested
invocation though. We don't update the `C` tag. I've referred to the rebased `C`
with `test_cmp_rev linear-early HEAD^` and similar for the other checks.

* * *

And then there's the discussion about using `exec git branch -f`. To summarize
the issues collected from the entire thread:

1. the changes aren't atomically applied at the end of the rebase
2. it fails when the branch is checked out in a worktree
3. it clobbers the branch if anything else updates it during the rebase
4. the way we prepare the unprefixed branch doesn't work right some exotic cases
5. the reflog message it leaves is uninformative

For #4, I think we've lucked out actually. The `load_ref_decorations` routine we
use determines that a ref is `DECORATION_REF_LOCAL` under the condition
`starts_with(refname, "refs/heads/")` (log-tree.c:114, add_ref_decoration), so
`prettify_refname` will find the prefix and skip it. But that's an invariant
maintained by two pieces of code pretty far away from each other.

For #5, for the convenience of readers, the reflog entry it leaves looks like this:

```
00873f2 feat-e@{0}: branch: Reset to HEAD
```

Not great.

I haven't made any changes to this yet, but I've thought about what I want. My
favorite so far is to add a new todo command that just does everything right. It
would make a temparary ref `refs/rewritten-heads/xxx` (or something), and update
`refs/heads/xxx` at the end.

I agree that requiring a separate update-ref step at the end of the todo list is
unfriendly. Manually putting in some branch update commands and then realizing
that they weren't applied would be extremely frustrating. I don't see the option
of using existing tools as the easiest-to-use solution.

I'm reluctant to combine this with the existing `label` command. So far it
sounds like we generally want to be more willing to skip branch updates while
performing the rebase, with aforementioned scenarios where something else
updates the branch before we do, or if the branch becomes checked out in a
worktree. We don't want to mess up the structure of a `rebase -r` as a result of
skipping some branch updates. I think it would be conceptually simpler and
implementation-wise less tricky if we didn't combine it with the `label` and
`reset` system.

Warren He (1):
  rebase: introduce --update-branches option

 Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  9 ++++
 builtin/rebase.c                  | 11 ++++-
 sequencer.c                       | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 sequencer.h                       |  6 ++-
 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh

-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-07 23:44     ` [PATCH v2] " Warren He
@ 2019-09-07 23:44       ` Warren He
  2019-09-09 10:44       ` Phillip Wood
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Warren He @ 2019-09-07 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: johannes.schindelin; +Cc: git, pickydaemon, wh109

Rebasing normally updates the current branch to the rewritten version.
If any other branches point to commits rewritten along the way, those
remain untouched. This commit adds an `--update-branches` option, which
instructs the command to update any such branches that it encounters to
point to the rewritten versions of those commits.

Signed-off-by: Warren He <wh109@yahoo.com>
---
 Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  9 ++++
 builtin/rebase.c                  | 11 ++++-
 sequencer.c                       | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 sequencer.h                       |  6 ++-
 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh

diff --git a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
index 6156609..b650a8f 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
@@ -246,6 +246,13 @@ leave out at most one of A and B, in which case it defaults to HEAD.
 +
 See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
 
+--update-branches::
+	If there are branch refs that point to commits that will be
+	reapplied, add shell commands to the todo list to update those
+	refs to point to the commits in the final history.
++
+See also INCOMPATIBLE OPTIONS below.
+
 --allow-empty-message::
 	By default, rebasing commits with an empty message will fail.
 	This option overrides that behavior, allowing commits with empty
@@ -535,6 +542,7 @@ are incompatible with the following options:
  * --interactive
  * --exec
  * --keep-empty
+ * --update-branches
  * --edit-todo
  * --root when used in combination with --onto
 
@@ -543,6 +551,7 @@ In addition, the following pairs of options are incompatible:
  * --preserve-merges and --interactive
  * --preserve-merges and --signoff
  * --preserve-merges and --rebase-merges
+ * --preserve-merges and --update-branches
  * --rebase-merges and --strategy
  * --rebase-merges and --strategy-option
 
diff --git a/builtin/rebase.c b/builtin/rebase.c
index 670096c..ab2308c 100644
--- a/builtin/rebase.c
+++ b/builtin/rebase.c
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct rebase_options {
 	int signoff;
 	int allow_rerere_autoupdate;
 	int keep_empty;
+	int update_branches;
 	int autosquash;
 	char *gpg_sign_opt;
 	int autostash;
@@ -349,8 +350,8 @@ static int do_interactive_rebase(struct rebase_options *opts, unsigned flags)
 
 		split_exec_commands(opts->cmd, &commands);
 		ret = complete_action(the_repository, &replay, flags,
-			shortrevisions, opts->onto_name, opts->onto, head_hash,
-			&commands, opts->autosquash, &todo_list);
+			shortrevisions, opts->onto_name, opts->onto, opts->head_name,
+			head_hash, &commands, opts->autosquash, &todo_list);
 	}
 
 	string_list_clear(&commands, 0);
@@ -375,6 +376,7 @@ static int run_rebase_interactive(struct rebase_options *opts,
 	flags |= opts->rebase_merges ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_MERGES : 0;
 	flags |= opts->rebase_cousins > 0 ? TODO_LIST_REBASE_COUSINS : 0;
 	flags |= command == ACTION_SHORTEN_OIDS ? TODO_LIST_SHORTEN_IDS : 0;
+	flags |= opts->update_branches ? TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES : 0;
 
 	switch (command) {
 	case ACTION_NONE: {
@@ -1453,6 +1455,8 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE(&options.allow_rerere_autoupdate),
 		OPT_BOOL('k', "keep-empty", &options.keep_empty,
 			 N_("preserve empty commits during rebase")),
+		OPT_BOOL(0, "update-branches", &options.update_branches,
+			 N_("update branches that point to rebased commits")),
 		OPT_BOOL(0, "autosquash", &options.autosquash,
 			 N_("move commits that begin with "
 			    "squash!/fixup! under -i")),
@@ -1710,6 +1714,9 @@ int cmd_rebase(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 	if (options.keep_empty)
 		imply_interactive(&options, "--keep-empty");
 
+	if (options.update_branches)
+		imply_interactive(&options, "--update-branches");
+
 	if (gpg_sign) {
 		free(options.gpg_sign_opt);
 		options.gpg_sign_opt = xstrfmt("-S%s", gpg_sign);
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 34ebf8e..0fe8452 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -4901,6 +4901,59 @@ void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
 	todo_list->alloc = alloc;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Add commands to update branch refs after the todo list would pick a commit
+ * that a branch ref points to.
+ */
+static void todo_list_add_branch_updates(struct repository *r,
+					 struct todo_list *todo_list,
+					 const char *head_name)
+{
+	struct strbuf *buf = &todo_list->buf;
+	/* watch out: items in here point into todo_list's buf, not its own */
+	struct todo_list new_list = TODO_LIST_INIT;
+	int i;
+
+	load_ref_decorations(NULL, 0);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < todo_list->nr; i++) {
+		const struct todo_item *item = todo_list->items + i;
+		enum todo_command command = item->command;
+		const struct name_decoration *decoration;
+
+		*append_new_todo(&new_list) = todo_list->items[i];
+
+		if (!(is_pick_or_similar(command) || command == TODO_MERGE))
+			continue;
+
+		decoration = get_name_decoration(&item->commit->object);
+		for (; decoration; decoration = decoration->next) {
+			size_t base_offset;
+
+			/*
+			 * (i)  skip other refs like tags and remote refs
+			 * (ii) rebase itself will update the current branch
+			 *      for us
+			 */
+			if (decoration->type != DECORATION_REF_LOCAL ||
+			    !strcmp(decoration->name, head_name))
+				continue;
+
+			base_offset = buf->len;
+			strbuf_addf(buf, "exec git branch -f %s\n",
+				    prettify_refname(decoration->name));
+			parse_insn_line(r, append_new_todo(&new_list), buf->buf,
+					buf->buf + base_offset,
+					buf->buf + buf->len - 1);
+		}
+	}
+
+	SWAP(new_list.items, todo_list->items);
+	SWAP(new_list.nr, todo_list->nr);
+	SWAP(new_list.alloc, todo_list->alloc);
+	todo_list_release(&new_list);
+}
+
 static void todo_list_to_strbuf(struct repository *r, struct todo_list *todo_list,
 				struct strbuf *buf, int num, unsigned flags)
 {
@@ -5051,7 +5104,7 @@ static int skip_unnecessary_picks(struct repository *r,
 
 int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned flags,
 		    const char *shortrevisions, const char *onto_name,
-		    struct commit *onto, const char *orig_head,
+		    struct commit *onto, const char *head_name, const char *orig_head,
 		    struct string_list *commands, unsigned autosquash,
 		    struct todo_list *todo_list)
 {
@@ -5070,6 +5123,9 @@ int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned fla
 		item->arg_len = item->arg_offset = item->flags = item->offset_in_buf = 0;
 	}
 
+	if (flags & TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES)
+		todo_list_add_branch_updates(r, todo_list, head_name);
+
 	if (autosquash && todo_list_rearrange_squash(todo_list))
 		return -1;
 
diff --git a/sequencer.h b/sequencer.h
index 6704acb..69c6f71 100644
--- a/sequencer.h
+++ b/sequencer.h
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ int sequencer_remove_state(struct replay_opts *opts);
  */
 #define TODO_LIST_REBASE_COUSINS (1U << 4)
 #define TODO_LIST_APPEND_TODO_HELP (1U << 5)
+#define TODO_LIST_UPDATE_BRANCHES (1U << 6)
 
 int sequencer_make_script(struct repository *r, struct strbuf *out, int argc,
 			  const char **argv, unsigned flags);
@@ -152,8 +153,9 @@ void todo_list_add_exec_commands(struct todo_list *todo_list,
 int check_todo_list_from_file(struct repository *r);
 int complete_action(struct repository *r, struct replay_opts *opts, unsigned flags,
 		    const char *shortrevisions, const char *onto_name,
-		    struct commit *onto, const char *orig_head, struct string_list *commands,
-		    unsigned autosquash, struct todo_list *todo_list);
+		    struct commit *onto, const char *head_name, const char *orig_head,
+		    struct string_list *commands, unsigned autosquash,
+		    struct todo_list *todo_list);
 int todo_list_rearrange_squash(struct todo_list *todo_list);
 
 /*
diff --git a/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..b57b64a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+test_description='git rebase --update-branches
+
+This test runs git rebase, updating branch refs that point to commits
+that are rebased.
+
+Initial setup:
+
+ A - B  (master)
+  |\
+  |  C      (linear-early)
+  |    \
+  |      D  (linear-late)
+  |\
+  |  E          (feat-e)
+  |\   \
+  |  F  |       (feat-f)
+  |    \|
+  |      G      (interim)
+  |        \
+  |          H  (my-dev, my-hotfixes)
+   \
+     I - J - fixup! I                 (fixup-early)
+		      \
+			K - fixup! J  (fixup-late)
+'
+. ./test-lib.sh
+
+test_expect_success 'set up common' '
+	test_commit A &&
+	test_commit B
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'set up linear' '
+	git checkout -b linear-early A &&
+	test_commit C &&
+	git checkout -b linear-late &&
+	test_commit D
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'smoketest linear' '
+	git rebase --update-branches master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'check linear' '
+	test_cmp_rev linear-early HEAD^
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'set up merge' '
+	git checkout -b feat-e A &&
+	test_commit E &&
+	git checkout -b feat-f A &&
+	test_commit F &&
+	git checkout -b interim &&
+	test_merge G feat-e &&
+	git checkout -b my-dev &&
+	test_commit H &&
+	git branch my-hotfixes
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'smoketest merge' '
+	git rebase -r --update-branches master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'check merge' '
+	test_cmp_rev feat-e HEAD^^2 &&
+	test_cmp_rev feat-f HEAD^^ &&
+	test_cmp_rev interim HEAD^ &&
+	test_cmp_rev my-hotfixes HEAD
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'set up fixup' '
+	git checkout -b fixup-early A &&
+	test_commit I &&
+	test_commit J &&
+	test_commit "fixup! I" I.t II fixup-I &&
+	git checkout -b fixup-late &&
+	test_commit K &&
+	test_commit "fixup! J" J.t JJ fixup-J
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'smoketest fixup' '
+	git rebase -i --autosquash --update-branches master
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'check fixup' '
+	test_cmp_rev fixup-early HEAD^ &&
+	test_cmp_rev fixup-early^:I.t fixup-I:I.t &&
+	test_cmp_rev fixup-early:J.t fixup-J:J.t &&
+	test_cmp_rev HEAD:K.t K:K.t
+'
+
+test_done
-- 
2.7.4


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-07 23:41       ` Warren He
@ 2019-09-08 18:04         ` brian m. carlson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: brian m. carlson @ 2019-09-08 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren He; +Cc: me, gitster, git, wh109

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

On 2019-09-07 at 23:41:46, Warren He wrote:
> Brian, thanks for looking. The only thing I can come up with to say about having
> lots of refs is that at least that part of this isn't brand new code. The part
> that collects ref info uses the same routines as `git log --decorate`. Do you
> recall how long that took in the repository with 80,000 refs?

It worked, but some colleagues at the time turned it off because it was
at the threshold of annoying.  Overall, it didn't perform so badly that
I think it would be a huge problem here, considering this is usually an
interactive operation, and I'm fine with adopting this solution for now
and then focusing on optimizing a bit more in the future.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 868 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-07 23:44     ` [PATCH v2] " Warren He
  2019-09-07 23:44       ` Warren He
@ 2019-09-09 10:44       ` Phillip Wood
  2019-09-09 14:13         ` Johannes Schindelin
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Phillip Wood @ 2019-09-09 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren He, johannes.schindelin; +Cc: git, wh109

Hi Warren

On 08/09/2019 00:44, Warren He wrote:
> Everyone in this thread, thanks for your support and encouragement.
> [...]
>> It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges`.
> 
> `imply_interactive` doesn't fully switch on `--interactive`, i.e., causing the
> editor to open. It only selects the backend, which I think we're saying is the
> right thing. I've dropped the `-i` from the test description.
> 
> And we don't really have to imply --rebase-merges, in case someone would prefer
> to linearize things, which who knows? Running that non-rebase-merges command in
> the example scenario from my original post should give something like this:

I think it would probably be less confusing to default to preserving 
merges and having an option to turn that off - people are going to be 
surprised if their history is linearized.

> ```
>   A - B              (master)
>         \
>           F          (feat-f)
>             \
>               E      (feat-e)
>                 \
>                   H  (my-dev)
> ```
> 
> So for now I haven't moved the implementation into `make_script_with_merges`.
>
 > [...]>
>> [handling `fixup`/`squash` chains]
> 
> I've moved `todo_list_add_branch_updates` to run before
> `todo_list_rearrange_squash`. The rearranging pulls fixups out, causing the
> branch update to "fall" onto the items before, and reinserts them between a
> commit and its branch update, casing them to be included in the updated branch.
> which is my opinion of the right thing to do. I've added a test about this with
> the following scenario:
> 
> ```
>   A - B  (master)
>     \
>       I - J - fixup! I                 (fixup-early)
> 		      \
> 			K - fixup! J  (fixup-late)
> ```
> 
> which results in the following todo list with `--autosquash`:
> 
> ```
> pick 9eadc32 I
> fixup 265fa32 fixup! I
> pick a0754fc J
> fixup e7d1999 fixup! J
> exec git branch -f fixup-early
> pick c8bc4af K
> ```

That makes sense I think

>> I'd like to suggest [`test_cmp_rev`] instead
> 
> I've updated the test to use `test_cmp_rev`. It's not with your suggested
> invocation though. We don't update the `C` tag. I've referred to the rebased `C`
> with `test_cmp_rev linear-early HEAD^` and similar for the other checks.

That sounds right

> * * *
> 
> And then there's the discussion about using `exec git branch -f`. To summarize
> the issues collected from the entire thread:
> 
> 1. the changes aren't atomically applied at the end of the rebase
> 2. it fails when the branch is checked out in a worktree
> 3. it clobbers the branch if anything else updates it during the rebase
> 4. the way we prepare the unprefixed branch doesn't work right some exotic cases
> 5. the reflog message it leaves is uninformative
> 
> For #4, I think we've lucked out actually. The `load_ref_decorations` routine we
> use determines that a ref is `DECORATION_REF_LOCAL` under the condition
> `starts_with(refname, "refs/heads/")` (log-tree.c:114, add_ref_decoration), so
> `prettify_refname` will find the prefix and skip it. But that's an invariant
> maintained by two pieces of code pretty far away from each other.
> 
> For #5, for the convenience of readers, the reflog entry it leaves looks like this:
> 
> ```
> 00873f2 feat-e@{0}: branch: Reset to HEAD
> ```
> 
> Not great.
> 
> I haven't made any changes to this yet, but I've thought about what I want. My
> favorite so far is to add a new todo command that just does everything right. It
> would make a temparary ref `refs/rewritten-heads/xxx` (or something), and update
> `refs/heads/xxx` at the end.

I think that's the best way to do it. If we had a command like 'branch 
<branch-name>' that creates a ref to remember the current HEAD and saves 
the current branch head. Then at the end rebase can update the branches 
to point to the saved commits if the branch is unchanged. If the rebase 
is aborted then we don't end up with some branches updated and others not.

Side Note
   I'd avoid creating another worktree local ref refs/rewritten-heads/.
   Either store them under refs/rewritten/ or refs/worktree/

Best Wishes

Phillip

> 
> I agree that requiring a separate update-ref step at the end of the todo list is
> unfriendly. Manually putting in some branch update commands and then realizing
> that they weren't applied would be extremely frustrating. I don't see the option
> of using existing tools as the easiest-to-use solution.
> 
> I'm reluctant to combine this with the existing `label` command. So far it
> sounds like we generally want to be more willing to skip branch updates while
> performing the rebase, with aforementioned scenarios where something else
> updates the branch before we do, or if the branch becomes checked out in a
> worktree. We don't want to mess up the structure of a `rebase -r` as a result of
> skipping some branch updates. I think it would be conceptually simpler and
> implementation-wise less tricky if we didn't combine it with the `label` and
> `reset` system.
> 
> Warren He (1):
>    rebase: introduce --update-branches option
> 
>   Documentation/git-rebase.txt      |  9 ++++
>   builtin/rebase.c                  | 11 ++++-
>   sequencer.c                       | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   sequencer.h                       |  6 ++-
>   t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100755 t/t3431-rebase-update-branches.sh
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-09 10:44       ` Phillip Wood
@ 2019-09-09 14:13         ` Johannes Schindelin
  2019-09-09 18:11           ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2019-09-09 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: phillip.wood; +Cc: Warren He, git, wh109

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Phillip Wood wrote:

> On 08/09/2019 00:44, Warren He wrote:
> > Everyone in this thread, thanks for your support and encouragement.
> > [...]
> > > It should not really imply `--interactive`, but `--rebase-merges`.
> >
> > `imply_interactive` doesn't fully switch on `--interactive`, i.e., causing
> > the
> > editor to open. It only selects the backend, which I think we're saying is
> > the
> > right thing. I've dropped the `-i` from the test description.
> >
> > And we don't really have to imply --rebase-merges, in case someone would
> > prefer
> > to linearize things, which who knows? Running that non-rebase-merges command
> > in
> > the example scenario from my original post should give something like this:
>
> I think it would probably be less confusing to default to preserving merges

s/preserving/rebasing/?

> and having an option to turn that off - people are going to be surprised if
> their history is linearized.

I don't think it makes any sense to linearize the history while updating
branches, as the commits will be all jumbled up. Imagine this history:

	- A - B - C - D -
	    \       /
	      E - F

Typically, it does not elicit any "bug" reports, but this can easily be
linearized to

	- A' - B' - E' - C' - F' -

In my mind, it makes no sense to update any local branches that pointed
to C and F to point to C' and F', respectively.

> [...]
> > * * *
> >
> > And then there's the discussion about using `exec git branch -f`. To
> > summarize
> > the issues collected from the entire thread:
> >
> > 1. the changes aren't atomically applied at the end of the rebase
> > 2. it fails when the branch is checked out in a worktree
> > 3. it clobbers the branch if anything else updates it during the rebase
> > 4. the way we prepare the unprefixed branch doesn't work right some exotic
> > cases
> > 5. the reflog message it leaves is uninformative
> >
> > For #4, I think we've lucked out actually. The `load_ref_decorations`
> > routine we
> > use determines that a ref is `DECORATION_REF_LOCAL` under the condition
> > `starts_with(refname, "refs/heads/")` (log-tree.c:114, add_ref_decoration),
> > so
> > `prettify_refname` will find the prefix and skip it. But that's an invariant
> > maintained by two pieces of code pretty far away from each other.
> >
> > For #5, for the convenience of readers, the reflog entry it leaves looks
> > like this:
> >
> > ```
> > 00873f2 feat-e@{0}: branch: Reset to HEAD
> > ```
> >
> > Not great.
> >
> > I haven't made any changes to this yet, but I've thought about what I want.
> > My
> > favorite so far is to add a new todo command that just does everything
> > right. It
> > would make a temparary ref `refs/rewritten-heads/xxx` (or something), and
> > update
> > `refs/heads/xxx` at the end.
>
> I think that's the best way to do it. If we had a command like 'branch
> <branch-name>' that creates a ref to remember the current HEAD and saves the
> current branch head. Then at the end rebase can update the branches to point
> to the saved commits if the branch is unchanged. If the rebase is aborted then
> we don't end up with some branches updated and others not.

I'd avoid cluttering the space with more commands. For `branch`, for
example, the natural short command would be `b`, but that already means
`break`.

In contrast, I would think that

	label --update-branch my-side-track

would make for a nicer read than

	label my-side-track
	branch my-side-track

Of course, it would be a lot harder to bring back the safety of `git
update-ref`'s `<old-revision>` safe-guard, in either forms.

And of course, the first form would _require_ the logic to be moved to
`make_script_with_merges()` because we could not otherwise guarantee
that the labels corresponding to local branch names aren't already in
use, for different commits.

> Side Note
>   I'd avoid creating another worktree local ref refs/rewritten-heads/.
>   Either store them under refs/rewritten/ or refs/worktree/

Yep.

Ciao,
Dscho

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] rebase: introduce --update-branches option
  2019-09-09 14:13         ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2019-09-09 18:11           ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-09-09 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: phillip.wood, Warren He, git, wh109

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> In contrast, I would think that
>
> 	label --update-branch my-side-track
>
> would make for a nicer read than
>
> 	label my-side-track
> 	branch my-side-track

Because labelling while recreating a mergey history is conceptually
the same as temporarily updating the branch head from end users'
point of view, so this sounds quite sensible.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-02 23:41 [PATCH] rebase: introduce --update-branches option Warren He
2019-09-02 23:41 ` Warren He
2019-09-03 13:26   ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-09-07 23:44     ` [PATCH v2] " Warren He
2019-09-07 23:44       ` Warren He
2019-09-09 10:44       ` Phillip Wood
2019-09-09 14:13         ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-09-09 18:11           ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-03  0:50 ` [PATCH] " brian m. carlson
2019-09-03  1:21   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-09-03  1:39     ` Taylor Blau
2019-09-07 23:41       ` Warren He
2019-09-08 18:04         ` brian m. carlson
2019-09-03 12:19 ` Phillip Wood
2019-09-07 23:43   ` Warren He

git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
	nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

 note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox