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-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 CC6B31F8C6 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 19:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230039AbhGNTgy (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:36:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46940 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229506AbhGNTgy (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:36:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x104a.google.com (mail-pj1-x104a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::104a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A62C06175F for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x104a.google.com with SMTP id om5-20020a17090b3a85b029016eb0b21f1dso2096218pjb.4 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=KWs6d9kvwEWWycsEBXJfkvVMVKAExul5XPm7LXd6KU8=; b=V+XMW5SPsXKZbWD58h/u+Ul9cf17gp6d04Nk96wwWHNhXFflySHQpA0r+EhiimICtQ SdnlK34GvMN412WUHt6ZXM9fGugVZ/BsJCHhEEajGN9nnDVhlNPMrowtAnSfkvKgiz7s T0FbdTPwWUKG5bNctyxkfOlDsKpta/72auCB4IyAkzFjggiQp4oysMV/5EENJGmkmIzZ ZPK54/6gA5m/qp6bCaXrcPpJ9gyQ0MGmbLVhmOfXEb/AaN+GRpwItUOMUI6G4zaXGjq4 FknosW7OuOuDliiUek4jfcpFdPKnd3O5BnOsDJDH6WDCfG8iirEJVYdlZDg7DqwcVYVj Ui4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=KWs6d9kvwEWWycsEBXJfkvVMVKAExul5XPm7LXd6KU8=; b=Q7Yh63MwJD1CNJxjC9x8WnmtOkeDjiWneaY6sNtAQW6DPnLE++e3iVq/80ZkV2XC3d YJxvGuGoV1uyEissvUwbp3KJF9Jq4QtfXcsUzCNu/WlSVoQBGXtewyYlrwwnhGj6OwIs lJRrG/A9fxQjOrdZLIrBETIxAWZ1NeLpA7axG1zGe+dnqsuUIE8SYCOQ1E+8Pj9MNugy c1Dfjj8lTF2y7JdhzS55RsUMf69rIa1iZ30Ayg7JSjtAqyV7igMCHhWC2txTRK93USxP hiNY3Bm8vkuIiONBxV+ltPS91KmhcxpxOqmXLMCE2l31sdNGRRQzMSihpQ0R+Ra+roli GivA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530L+aHGcwSDUW07F28oGyNQwSvpzct8SJF3gDTnAIjQJ20rm5g8 6MxvoYFye4PYn2Jmp2rzrbQJMUFqbFmH5HTzErGk X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyglkqxHwnVjjdR1ViYR7jsQD30e6sEGXXVKy/aCW/yO//TuUaA7CImf+5+IOd2JDD38L60BH6zSrzsbJyXf6Nt X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:437a]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a62:30c5:0:b029:31e:fa6d:1738 with SMTP id w188-20020a6230c50000b029031efa6d1738mr11429619pfw.55.1626291241955; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:33:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20210714193359.4083725-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0.93.g670b81a890-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] send-pack: fix push nego. when remote has refs From: Jonathan Tan To: emilyshaffer@google.com Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:30:52PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > > Commit 477673d6f3 ("send-pack: support push negotiation", 2021-05-05) > > did not test the case in which a remote advertises at least one ref. In > > such a case, "remote_refs" in get_commons_through_negotiation() in > > send-pack.c would also contain those refs with a zero ref->new_oid (in > > addition to the refs being pushed with a nonzero ref->new_oid). Passing > > them as negotiation tips to "git fetch" causes an error, so filter them > > out. > > So here we are filtering those redundant refs on the client side? Yes, but I don't know what you mean by "redundant". > > @@ -210,6 +211,7 @@ test_expect_success 'push with negotiation' ' > > rm event && > > mk_empty testrepo && > > git push testrepo $the_first_commit:refs/remotes/origin/first_commit && > > + test_commit -C testrepo unrelated_commit && > > So now we are asking 'testrepo' to initially advertise that it also has > unrelated_commit, which we don't care about, and expect to work fine > anyway. Ok. Yes. > Seems reasonable enough to me. > Reviewed-by: Emily Shaffer Thanks.