From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D281F4B4 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726782AbgIOOHL (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:07:11 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:52645 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726766AbgIOOGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:06:48 -0400 Received: from mail.cetitecgmbh.com ([87.190.42.90]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue107 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MGygv-1kEf630vDf-00E7k7; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:06:16 +0200 Received: from pflvmailgateway.corp.cetitec.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cetitecgmbh.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AEA31E01E7; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:06:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cetitec.com Received: from mail.cetitecgmbh.com ([127.0.0.1]) by pflvmailgateway.corp.cetitec.com (pflvmailgateway.corp.cetitec.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Os7pgqBRV8By; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:06:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pflmari.corp.cetitec.com (unknown [10.10.5.94]) by mail.cetitecgmbh.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06A851E01E6; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:06:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pflmari.corp.cetitec.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D32AC80518; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:06:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:06:13 +0200 From: Alex Riesen To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Wong , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: sub-fetches discard --ipv4|6 option Message-ID: <20200915140613.GB18984@pflmari> References: <20200914121906.GD4705@pflmari> <20200914194951.GA2819729@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200915115025.GA18984@pflmari> <20200915130506.GA2839276@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200915130506.GA2839276@coredump.intra.peff.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:eq547BLef0MHKlHF0itJbTgscEKRQfXl1vlpBvcMvbV8D6jaT7h lPUc0aFoslpIdEn6crvc/QbpDxUeJLPsTM9QA8bHgsrdFDbW9y5X4A9LoLzn3t27zAMbWvC imipkbzMfpZSOrvTg/7rquaHLgB+BfNaf3gaNdd604x69PCowkQshJUiTOq6VKr1k/K7v3d I+ecNYyDtq3FNAz0EzC1Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:kMxK7U/ZeiI=:RfW8yYzKaFPVZrhzwhoN8l 1HRpC6UOhMmE+xSzTGNXIYn7jFngKWpXB6d1zEgs22eFMKI+Xo2vvi6NXHYYPOkQD7PWNUugZ K43KukJAMh5Al9gN2WUNqCtdg3w6zOG+n+4bR3hbvZ5cI6Qf8oaI1BDlzDj7ftpn4fnOWFkZK 77K1DEZAuIyey+qQqbncaB4Fn9T6SlqZj3yW/WBNMVqRKvLP4qSNoFHWZ7Rdt8igivv9lHgh9 KpdctcG8wttHwBgv4snxkYNN8FrvqmKQA9faoN+NiklaOqQybLj6rrS7o7/deY1G63SpKCB6R aXlRrCMRG16t99Wf9vu6zRE5OpA8CN0aLGKh16KAQnZglxTUeuWXxduDNCYYEAqEcI78RYPxD x+/TyD6ueZRgioebM8Qhu7QbPYR4ZqwWFE5TuLI7NV5eL0+Qo9LsHREQ7rAAgRGwPHCdxAwiu +kAjw1HwynfXLMtztw2M8SH8DC4gU2dEkTXRQNtaKQpgodx0CP84Ik/Ry4PnzezLJ2HIicFKX nY1Bpjx4GXyvHLccFHbTZr0e6PuhK1gyP6g0bJDhkZEWXoxyCVNvy9oqP0noqN0Yu0tp7csh1 sBLD5Sc/g1wKGu5w/U3b5i4MaIies039qQT9bEh0sTkGl9vEq3zJHJKlaX5LGsjQEvmUhDJNj BPYqCfZ3LLIEBejU3XR2dzHZas/ttvT6yflBGHDzDDF0cDC4GsXF9sfKvqs9b24MtiYfKRY8/ nQjN/ucRLF66Is1ww2voaaK46+pGLQ5+M7fcGpgN/QuD2IpEgVr7ajtY/gUlVGVbhf92whk+H kAs2r9vqfcUXXJoXMU9t8cYlK6td/vXINbJLzN1VsZ9VKg3UkrgG5ASC3vFOsoSFbxGvkgmnr bftWwJVNfUgQPhwhe+oQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King, Tue, Sep 15, 2020 15:05:06 +0200: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:50:25PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote: > > > > So your patch above looks quite sensible (modulo useful bits like a > > > signoff and maybe a test, though I guess the impact of those options > > > is probably hard to cover in our tests). > > > > I tried to come up with one, but (aside from rather pointless checking of > > option presence in the trace output) failed to. > > > > Or may be precisely this could be the point of the test: just do a fetch with > > all options we intend to pass down to sub-fetches and check that they are > > indeed present in the invocation of fetch --all/--multiple/--recurse-submodules? > > Unfortunately I don't think that accomplishes much, since the main bug > we're worried about is missing options. And it would require somebody > adding the new options to the test, at which point you could just assume > they would add it to add_options_to_argv(). > > Though I guess we can automatically get the list of options these days. > So perhaps something like: > > subopts= > for opt in $(git fetch --git-completion-helper) ... > Except that doesn't quite work, because the parent fetch will complain > about nonsense values (e.g., --filter=1). So it would probably need a > bit more manual intelligence to cover those options. It looks like some > options are mutually exclusive, too (--deepen/--depth), so maybe we'd > need to run an individual "fetch --all" for each option. > > I dunno. It's getting pretty complicated. :) It does :-( And the manual parts will require perpetual maintenance. Not doing that yet than. > > > It is rather unfortunate that anybody adding new fetch options needs to > > > remember to (maybe) add them to add_options_to_argv() themselves. > > > > Maybe make add_options_to_argv to go through builtin_fetch_options[] and copy > > the options with a special marker if they were provided? > > And use the word "recursive" in help text as the marker :) > > Yeah, that would solve the duplication problem. We could probably add a > "recursive" bit to the parse-options flag variable. Even if > parse-options itself doesn't use it, it could be a convenience for > callers like this one. It is a little inconvenient to set flags there, > just because it usually means ditching our wrapper macros in favor of a > raw struct declaration. Or extend the list of wrappers with _REC(URSIVE) macros Regards, Alex