From: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Damien Robert <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:48:42 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200302134842.GB1176622@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200301220531.iuokzzdb5gruslrn@doriath> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:05:31PM +0100, Damien Robert wrote: > So it remains the problem of handling the 'upstream' case. > The ideal solution would be to not duplicate branch_get_push_1. Yeah, that would be nice (though at least if it's all contained in remote.c, we can live with some duplication). There's already some duplication in the way remote_ref_for_branch() applies remote refspecs. And I think all of this may be duplicated with git-push itself (which would also be nice to get rid of, but last time I looked into it was hard to refactor it to do so). > In most of the case, this function finds `dst` which is exactly the > push:remoteref we are looking for. > > Then branch_get_push_1 uses > ret = tracking_for_push_dest(remote, dst, err); > which simply calls > ret = apply_refspecs(&remote->fetch, dst); Right, there we already have the remote name, and are applying the fetch refspecs to know what our tracking branch would be. So in remote_ref_for_branch(), we'd just not apply those. > The only different case is > case PUSH_DEFAULT_UPSTREAM: > return branch_get_upstream(branch, err); > which returns > branch->merge->dst We also have PUSH_DEFAULT_NOTHING, for which obviously we'd return nothing (NULL or an empty string). Likewise for SIMPLE, we probably need to check that the upstream has a matching name (and return nothing if not). > So we could almost write an auxiliary function that returns push:remoteref > and use it both in remote_ref_for_branch and branch_get_push_1 (via a > further call to tracking_for_push_dest) except for the 'upstream' case > which is subtly different. Yes, that makes sense. > In the 'upstream' case, the auxiliary function would return > branch->merge_name. So the question is: can > tracking_for_push_dest(branch->merge_name) be different from > branch->merge->dst? Those will both return tracking refs. I think you just want merge->src for the upstream case. And yes, the two can be different. It's the same case as when the upstream branch has a different name than the current branch. > Another solution could be as follow: we already store `push` in > `branch->push_tracking_ref`. So the question is: can we always easily convert > something like refs/remotes/origin/branch_name to refs/heads/branch_name > (ie essentially reverse ètracking_for_push_dest`), or are there corner cases? This would basically be reverse-applying the fetch refspec. In theory it should be possible, but there are cases where somebody has overlapping refspecs. But at any rate, I think it's better to just get the pre-mapped values (i.e., avoid calling tracking_for_push_dest() in the first place). > Otherwise a simple but not elegant solution would be to copy paste the > code of branch_get_push_1 to remote_ref_for_branch, simply removing the > calls to `tracking_for_push_dest` and using remote->branch_name rather > than remote->branch->dst for the upstream case. Yeah, I think that's going to be the easiest. It would be nice to avoid repeating that switch(), but frankly I think the boilerplate you'll end up with trying to handle the two cases may be worse than just repeating it. It may be worth adding a comment to each function to mention the other, and that any changes need to match. -Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 13:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-28 17:24 Damien Robert 2020-02-28 18:23 ` Jeff King 2020-03-01 22:05 ` Damien Robert 2020-03-02 13:32 ` Jeff King 2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Damien Robert 2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] remote: drop "explicit" parameter from remote_ref_for_branch() Damien Robert 2020-03-03 17:51 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-03 21:11 ` Jeff King 2020-03-03 22:22 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert 2020-03-03 16:29 ` Damien Robert 2020-03-03 18:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-03 18:21 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-03 22:24 ` Damien Robert 2020-03-03 22:48 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-12 16:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] " Damien Robert 2020-03-25 22:16 ` Damien Robert 2020-03-27 22:08 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-28 22:25 ` Damien Robert 2020-03-28 13:15 ` Jeff King 2020-03-28 13:31 ` Jeff King 2020-04-16 15:12 ` Damien Robert 2020-04-06 16:04 ` Damien Robert 2020-04-06 21:46 ` Jeff King 2020-04-06 17:56 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes Damien Robert 2020-04-06 17:56 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] remote.c: fix %(push) for triangular workflows Damien Robert 2020-04-06 17:56 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Damien Robert 2020-04-16 15:03 ` [PATCH v8 1/1] " Damien Robert 2020-04-16 15:21 ` Damien Robert 2020-09-03 22:01 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-11 21:43 ` Damien Robert 2020-09-14 22:21 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-03-03 16:16 ` [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref Damien Robert 2020-03-02 13:48 ` Jeff King [this message] 2020-03-03 16:25 ` Damien Robert
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=20200302134842.GB1176622@coredump.intra.peff.net \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref' \ /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
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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).