From: Jeff King <email@example.com> To: Jacob Keller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com>, Jacob Keller <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Git mailing list <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:41:16 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200818174116.GA2473110@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xpcm51cLPDDW+F1J-XZ2VvwNDWjnZqm54f3DKXxDfBF5Q@mail.gmail.com> 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 sensibly. -Peff
next prev parent 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: 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=20200818174116.GA2473110@coredump.intra.peff.net \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs' \ /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).