* Git commands version documentation @ 2022-05-22 18:41 Hrushikesh Rao 2022-05-22 22:02 ` Philip Oakley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Hrushikesh Rao @ 2022-05-22 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Hey, I am working on git maintenance project in Jenkins. We are using git-maintenance to improve the performance of the git commands further improving the build speed. Git maintenance was added in git version 2.30.0. The aim of the project is to also support systems having git version < 2.30.0. Few git maintenance tasks very available before the maintenance command was introduced i.e gc,commit-graph,gc and incremental repack. Is there a way for me to find out in which version these commands have been introduced? Based on this we can support legacy git version. Waiting for your response. Thank You Hrushikesh Rao Naidnur ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-22 18:41 Git commands version documentation Hrushikesh Rao @ 2022-05-22 22:02 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-22 23:35 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-22 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hrushikesh Rao, git On 22/05/2022 19:41, Hrushikesh Rao wrote: > Hey, > > I am working on git maintenance project in Jenkins. We are using > git-maintenance to improve the performance of the git commands further > improving the build speed. Git maintenance was added in git version > 2.30.0. The aim of the project is to also support systems having git > version < 2.30.0. Few git maintenance tasks very available before the > maintenance command was introduced i.e gc,commit-graph,gc and > incremental repack. > Is there a way for me to find out in which version these commands have > been introduced? Based on this we can support legacy git version. One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when appropriate options were added. Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt -- Philip ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-22 22:02 ` Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-22 23:35 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-23 11:10 ` Philip Oakley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-22 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Hrushikesh Rao, git Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective > man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when > appropriate options were added. > > Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. > https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt I got an impression that blame/log is an overkill for the request, which asks for "what tagged version?", to which the answer would be to compare the manual pages for each release (or scan the release notes), perhaps? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-22 23:35 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-23 11:10 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-23 13:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-23 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Hrushikesh Rao, git Hi Junio, On 23/05/2022 00:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: > >> One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective >> man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when >> appropriate options were added. >> >> Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. >> https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt > I got an impression that blame/log is an overkill for the request, > which asks for "what tagged version?", to which the answer would be > to compare the manual pages for each release (or scan the release > notes), perhaps? > > I was also concerned as to which way the problem was being addressed: was it a need for a cross reference table for all commands, or was it for just a select few? For me, who likes a good UI, I found the GitHub blame UI quite useful when looking at files from the latter direction. It was much easier to scan the blame for the command's documentation page than try and scan through the endless release notes. Obviously this does expect that our documentation is fairly complete, at least at the 'mention an option' level, even if the occasional nuance didn't reach the docs. I can see that a cli terminal representation is likely to be harder to scan, and that some hosters don't provide a blame page, so it would be a 'horses for courses' choice. Philip ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-23 11:10 ` Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-23 13:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2022-05-23 15:19 ` Philip Oakley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2022-05-23 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Hrushikesh Rao, git On Mon, May 23 2022, Philip Oakley wrote: > Hi Junio, > > On 23/05/2022 00:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: >> >>> One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective >>> man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when >>> appropriate options were added. >>> >>> Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. >>> https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt >> I got an impression that blame/log is an overkill for the request, >> which asks for "what tagged version?", to which the answer would be >> to compare the manual pages for each release (or scan the release >> notes), perhaps? >> >> > > I was also concerned as to which way the problem was being addressed: > was it a need for a cross reference table for all commands, or was it > for just a select few? > > For me, who likes a good UI, I found the GitHub blame UI quite useful > when looking at files from the latter direction. It was much easier to > scan the blame for the command's documentation page than try and scan > through the endless release notes. Obviously this does expect that our > documentation is fairly complete, at least at the 'mention an option' > level, even if the occasional nuance didn't reach the docs. > > > I can see that a cli terminal representation is likely to be harder to > scan, and that some hosters don't provide a blame page, so it would be > a 'horses for courses' choice. I think asking a git user to use "git blame" on our own source code is a non-starter in terms of where we'd like to eventually get. It's not very friendly, especially in the case of something like the log-family where option parsing is implemented over more than one file. Likewise some built-ins don't map to builtin/<name>.c, and all that is assuming a lot about the user knowing where to look. I think what the OP here really would like is something similar to Perl's "corelist(1)" but for Git. I.e. a meta-command you can ask to tell you what version introduced a given git sub-command, or even option for that command etc. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition to that) we could aim to document this sort of thing, e.g. have an "INTRODUCED IN" section or similar in the command documentation, or a similar blurb when we discuss various options. I have tried to add these sorts of mentions for some past changes, e.g. the "<refspec>" section in git-fetch(1) is one example (search for "Git version 2.20"). I think we could do with more of that sort of thing. One difficulty with doing this in git in particular is that (moreso than most other projects) when you submit a patch you can't be very certain about what release it's going to be in, i.e. it might end up cooking for many weeks & past a release window. But in any case, I think adding this as a first-class feature (perhaps to "git help") would be very useful, and it could be done in some way that wouldn't be a pain to maintain. E.g. we could carry a text file in our sources with a list of what commands existed at what versions, and what options they had (as extracted from the parse-options reflection mechanism). Rather than manually maintain such a list we could carry a script to that would attempt to build past releases, for any that were missing we'd attempt to build them and fill in the gaps. We could thus make this something (if Junio were willing) that would be a relatively small addition to pre-release preparations. For releases that couldn't be built anymore we could either manually fill in the data, or just not care. What exact version older than 1.8 introduced some command or option is something probably nobody cares about at this point. But it is *really useful* when scripting against git to know what recent-ish release something was introduced in, especially so if we'd helpfully annotate which releases were known to have been part of major distro releases, such as RHEL major releases, or OSX's Apple Git etc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-23 13:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2022-05-23 15:19 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-23 18:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-23 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Cc: Junio C Hamano, Hrushikesh Rao, git Hi Ævar On 23/05/2022 14:08, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, May 23 2022, Philip Oakley wrote: > >> Hi Junio, >> >> On 23/05/2022 00:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: >>> >>>> One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective >>>> man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when >>>> appropriate options were added. >>>> >>>> Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. >>>> https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt >>> I got an impression that blame/log is an overkill for the request, >>> which asks for "what tagged version?", to which the answer would be >>> to compare the manual pages for each release (or scan the release >>> notes), perhaps? >>> >>> >> I was also concerned as to which way the problem was being addressed: >> was it a need for a cross reference table for all commands, or was it >> for just a select few? >> >> For me, who likes a good UI, I found the GitHub blame UI quite useful >> when looking at files from the latter direction. It was much easier to >> scan the blame for the command's documentation page than try and scan >> through the endless release notes. Obviously this does expect that our >> documentation is fairly complete, at least at the 'mention an option' >> level, even if the occasional nuance didn't reach the docs. >> >> >> I can see that a cli terminal representation is likely to be harder to >> scan, and that some hosters don't provide a blame page, so it would be >> a 'horses for courses' choice. > I think asking a git user to use "git blame" on our own source code is a > non-starter in terms of where we'd like to eventually get. "we?" > It's not very > friendly, especially in the case of something like the log-family where > option parsing is implemented over more than one file. I think you've picked up the wrong essence of my answer, which was to Hrushikesh's question that asked "how could _they_ find out when various _particular_ maintenance commands (and by implication some options) were released?". It wasn't any all-singing all-dancing solution to some other problem, as I understood it. > > Likewise some built-ins don't map to builtin/<name>.c, and all that is > assuming a lot about the user knowing where to look. > > I think what the OP here really would like is something similar to > Perl's "corelist(1)" but for Git. I.e. a meta-command you can ask to > tell you what version introduced a given git sub-command, or even option > for that command etc. corelist(1) is not something I'm familiar with, but looks like it might form the basis for a discussion about such a UX interface. > > Alternatively (or perhaps in addition to that) we could aim to document > this sort of thing, e.g. have an "INTRODUCED IN" section or similar in > the command documentation, or a similar blurb when we discuss various > options. > > I have tried to add these sorts of mentions for some past changes, > e.g. the "<refspec>" section in git-fetch(1) is one example (search for > "Git version 2.20"). > > I think we could do with more of that sort of thing. One difficulty with > doing this in git in particular is that (moreso than most other > projects) when you submit a patch you can't be very certain about what > release it's going to be in, i.e. it might end up cooking for many weeks > & past a release window. > > But in any case, I think adding this as a first-class feature (perhaps > to "git help") would be very useful, and it could be done in some way > that wouldn't be a pain to maintain. That "wouldn't be a pain to maintain" is probably the core of any such design.. > > E.g. we could carry a text file in our sources with a list of what > commands existed at what versions, and what options they had (as > extracted from the parse-options reflection mechanism). Rather than > manually maintain such a list we could carry a script to that would > attempt to build past releases, for any that were missing we'd attempt > to build them and fill in the gaps. Implicit in this is the choice between parsing the code, or the documentation, to determine when options started appearing. > > We could thus make this something (if Junio were willing) that would be > a relatively small addition to pre-release preparations. > > For releases that couldn't be built anymore we could either manually > fill in the data, or just not care. What exact version older than 1.8 > introduced some command or option is something probably nobody cares > about at this point. > > But it is *really useful* when scripting against git to know what > recent-ish release something was introduced in, especially so if we'd > helpfully annotate which releases were known to have been part of major > distro releases, such as RHEL major releases, or OSX's Apple Git etc. In some ways it sounds very similar to the i18n efforts where the 'database' grows with every release. Though capturing the historic release progression is probably the hardest part. -- Philip ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Git commands version documentation 2022-05-23 15:19 ` Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-23 18:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason @ 2022-05-23 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Hrushikesh Rao, git On Mon, May 23 2022, Philip Oakley wrote: > Hi Ævar > > On 23/05/2022 14:08, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> On Mon, May 23 2022, Philip Oakley wrote: >> >>> Hi Junio, >>> >>> On 23/05/2022 00:35, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes: >>>> >>>>> One manual method is to look at the history (blame) for the respective >>>>> man pages to see when the man page was initially committed, and when >>>>> appropriate options were added. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe use one of the hosting providers GUI if that is your choice e.g. >>>>> https://github.com/git/git/blame/master/Documentation/git-gc.txt >>>> I got an impression that blame/log is an overkill for the request, >>>> which asks for "what tagged version?", to which the answer would be >>>> to compare the manual pages for each release (or scan the release >>>> notes), perhaps? >>>> >>>> >>> I was also concerned as to which way the problem was being addressed: >>> was it a need for a cross reference table for all commands, or was it >>> for just a select few? >>> >>> For me, who likes a good UI, I found the GitHub blame UI quite useful >>> when looking at files from the latter direction. It was much easier to >>> scan the blame for the command's documentation page than try and scan >>> through the endless release notes. Obviously this does expect that our >>> documentation is fairly complete, at least at the 'mention an option' >>> level, even if the occasional nuance didn't reach the docs. >>> >>> >>> I can see that a cli terminal representation is likely to be harder to >>> scan, and that some hosters don't provide a blame page, so it would be >>> a 'horses for courses' choice. >> I think asking a git user to use "git blame" on our own source code is a >> non-starter in terms of where we'd like to eventually get. > > "we?" We as a project. >> E.g. we could carry a text file in our sources with a list of what >> commands existed at what versions, and what options they had (as >> extracted from the parse-options reflection mechanism). Rather than >> manually maintain such a list we could carry a script to that would >> attempt to build past releases, for any that were missing we'd attempt >> to build them and fill in the gaps. > > Implicit in this is the choice between parsing the code, or the > documentation, to determine when options started appearing. By "extracted from the parse-options reflection" I mean that you could script this around the same facility we use to dump what options we support for the bash completion. See parse-options.c, all users of the API support a hidden option to dump their supported options, and likewise git.c can dump built-ins and other known lists of commands. So in theory this sort of thing should be a relativel simple for-loop that builds our release tags, for each successful builds lists the built-ins, and for each of those lists the options. The options being a bonus, it would already be useful if it just did command. > In some ways it sounds very similar to the i18n efforts where the > 'database' grows with every release. Though capturing the historic > release progression is probably the hardest part. As long as we can still build that release it should be pretty easy... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-23 18:33 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-05-22 18:41 Git commands version documentation Hrushikesh Rao 2022-05-22 22:02 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-22 23:35 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-23 11:10 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-23 13:08 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2022-05-23 15:19 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-23 18:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
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).