list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: Damien Robert <>
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: <> (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
> 		return branch_get_upstream(branch, err);
> which returns
> 	branch->merge[0]->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[0]. So the question is: can
> tracking_for_push_dest(branch->merge_name[0]) be different from
> branch->merge[0]->dst?

Those will both return tracking refs. I think you just want
merge[0]->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[0] rather
> than remote->branch[0]->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.


  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:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref' \

* 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:

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).