mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: Jacob Keller <>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <>,
	Jacob Keller <>,
	Git mailing list <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:41:16 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:04:00PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:

> > > +     /* apply any negative refspecs now to prune the list of refs */
> > > +     ref_map = apply_negative_refspecs(ref_map, rs);
> > > +
> > >       ref_map = ref_remove_duplicates(ref_map);
> >
> > How was the ordering here decided?  Should it result the same set if
> > negative ones are excluded after duplicates are removed?
> Good question. This was what was done in peff's original patch. I need
> to understand a bit more about what ref_remove_duplicates does to
> really figure this out.

The relevant commit is 2467a4fa03 (Remove duplicate ref matches in
fetch, 2007-10-08), I think. We may end up with multiple refspecs
requesting a particular ref. E.g.:

  git fetch origin refs/heads/master refs/heads/*

I don't think the order should matter. If we apply negative refspecs
first, then we'd either remove both copies or leave both untouched (and
if the latter, then de-dup to a single). If we apply negative refspecs
after de-duping, then we'd either remove the single or leave it in
place. But the result is the same either way.

> > > @@ -1441,6 +1445,8 @@ int match_push_refs(struct ref *src, struct ref **dst,
> > >               string_list_clear(&src_ref_index, 0);
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     *dst = apply_negative_refspecs(*dst, rs);
> > > +
> >
> > The block of code whose tail is shown in the pre-context has
> > prepared "delete these refs because we no longer have them" to the
> > other side under MATCH_REFS_PRUNE but that was done based on the
> > *dst list before we applied the negative refspec.  Is the ordering
> > of these two correct, or should we filter the dst list with negative
> > ones and use the resulting one in pruning operation?
> I think we need to swap the order here. I'll take a closer look.

Hmm. I think the behavior we'd want is something like:

  # make sure the other side has three refs
  git branch prune/one HEAD
  git branch prune/two HEAD
  git branch prune/three HEAD
  git push dst.git refs/heads/prune/*

  # now drop two of ours, which are eligible for pruning
  git branch -d prune/one
  git branch -d prune/two

  # push with pruning, omitting "two"
  git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two

  # we should leave "two" but still deleted "one"
  test_write_lines one three >expect
  git -C dst.git for-each-ref --format='%(refname:lstrip=3)' refs/heads/prune/ >actual
  test_cmp expect actual

I.e., the negative refspec shrinks the space we're considering pruning.
And we'd probably want a similar test for "fetch --prune".

I just tried that, though, and got an interesting result. The push
actually complains:

  $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two
  error: src refspec refs/heads/prune/two does not match any
  error: failed to push some refs to 'dst.git'

For negative refspecs, would we want to loosen the "must-exist" check?
Or really, is this getting into the "are we negative on the src or dst"
thing you brought up earlier? Especially with --prune, what I really
want to say is "do not touch the remote refs/heads/two".

We can get work around it by using a wildcard:

  $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two*
  To dst.git
   - [deleted]         prune/one

So it works as I'd expect already with your patch. But I do wonder if
there are corner cases around the src/dst thing that might not behave


  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-18 17:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-15  0:25 [RFC 1/3] refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item Jacob Keller
2020-08-15  0:25 ` [RFC 2/3] refspec: make sure stack refspec_item variables are zeroed Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 16:33   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-17 16:49     ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-15  0:25 ` [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 18:02   ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 23:43   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-18  0:04     ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-18 17:41       ` Jeff King [this message]
2020-08-20 23:59         ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21  2:33           ` Jeff King
2020-08-21 16:19             ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-21 16:28               ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 17:16         ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 17:26           ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 18:21             ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 18:59               ` Jeff King
2020-08-17 16:18 ` [RFC 1/3] refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item Junio C Hamano
2020-08-21 21:17   ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 21:41     ` Junio C Hamano

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 \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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

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).