From: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] %(push) and %(push:remoteref) bug fixes
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 19:56:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200406175648.25737-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312164558.2388589-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
This fix several bugs in for-each-ref for %(push) and %(push:remoteref), as
explained in the commit messages.
Note that there are still several bugs:
- the memory leak mentioned by Jeff in
https://public-inbox.org/git/20200328131553.GA643242@coredump.intra.peff.net/
- in my patch, to detect if the workflow is triangular, I use:
static int is_workflow_triangular(struct branch *branch)
{
struct remote *fetch_remote = remote_get(remote_for_branch(branch, NULL));
struct remote *push_remote = remote_get(pushremote_for_branch(branch, NULL));
return (fetch_remote && push_remote && fetch_remote != push_remote);
}
But remote_get will always fallback to 'origin'. So this means that if we
set up a pushRemote="foobar" and no 'remote', the workflow is detected as
triangular.
Whereas in `git push`, this workflow will not be detected as triangular.
=> So I can check that by looking at *explicit, but I actually have a
question about what constitutes a triangular workflow, hence the RFC.
Furthermore, the upstream (and simple in non triangular workflow) case of
%(push) and (push:remoteref) are essentially via `branch_get_upstream`, which
is also used for %(upstream):
branch && branch->merge && branch->merge[0] &&
branch->merge[0]->dst)
but `git push` does different checks:
if (!branch->merge_nr || !branch->merge || !branch->remote_name)
die(_("The current branch %s has no upstream branch.\n"...
if (branch->merge_nr != 1)
die(_("The current branch %s has multiple upstream branches, "
"refusing to push."), branch->name);
in particular git push fails if merge_nr !=1 or if branch has no remote,
whereas %(push) will still indicates a push branch (assuming I fix
is_workflow_triangular).
So I'll need to add a `branch_get_push` with these checks instead.
So I first send this patch as an RFC, and I'll see how to proceed
afterwards to handle these remaining corner cases.
Luckily, having a pushRemote but no remote, or several merge in the branch
config are probably not too common.
=> So one question I have first is about the case when we do have a
branch.pushRemote but not a branch.remote.
Should this still be considered a triangular workflow?
According to git-push, no:
static int is_workflow_triangular(struct remote *remote)
{
struct remote *fetch_remote = remote_get(NULL);
return (fetch_remote && fetch_remote != remote);
}
but I would argue that we should.
This would change nothing for push.default=upstream, since currently we
check that `branch` has a remote_name in `setup_push_upstream` so it fails
anyway even if the workflow is not explicitly triangular, but this would
make push.default=simple behave as current, exactly as when branch.remote
is different from branch.pushRemote (and I would argue that no
branch.remote is a particular case of this situation).
PS: the first patch has no tests because I add them in the second patch, it
is more convenient to add them at once and test both patches.
PPS: v4 and v5 are intermediate versions I made but did not send to the ML.
Damien Robert (2):
remote.c: fix %(push) for triangular workflows
remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref)
remote.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
--
Patched on top of v2.26.0-106-g9fadedd637 (git version 2.26.0)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-06 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-28 17:24 [PATCH 1/1] remote.c: fix handling of push:remote_ref 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 ` Damien Robert [this message]
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
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=20200406175648.25737-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com \
--to=damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com \
--cc=damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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).