* [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes @ 2022-04-30 13:19 Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-04-30 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-03 15:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 0 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-04-30 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Abhradeep Chakraborty From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with their urls. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter types for promisor remotes. Something like this - origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] origin remote-url (push) Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> --- builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes Fixes #1211 [1] [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1227%2FAbhra303%2Fpromisor_remote-v1 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1227/Abhra303/promisor_remote-v1 Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1227 builtin/remote.c | 8 ++++++++ t/t5616-partial-clone.sh | 11 +++++++++++ 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c index 5f4cde9d784..95e28b534f4 100644 --- a/builtin/remote.c +++ b/builtin/remote.c @@ -1190,7 +1190,15 @@ static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) int i, url_nr; if (remote->url_nr > 0) { + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; + + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) + strbuf_addf(&url_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); + + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); } else diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh index 4a3778d04a8..bf8f3644d3c 100755 --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh @@ -49,6 +49,17 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" ' +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes is listed by git remote -v' ' + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "[blob:none]" out && + + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "[object:type=commit]" out && + rm -rf pc2 +' + test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && base-commit: 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-04-30 13:19 [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-04-30 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-01 15:57 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-03 15:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-04-30 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Abhradeep Chakraborty "Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > if (remote->url_nr > 0) { > + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; > + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; > + > + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); > strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); > + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) > + strbuf_addf(&url_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); > + > + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); > string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = > strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); Three comments and a half on the code: - Is it likely that to new readers it would be obvious that what is in the [square brackets] is the list-objects-filter used? When we want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them? - The presentation order is <remote-name> then <direction> (fetch or push) and then optionally <list-objects-filter>. (a) shouldn't the output format be described in the doucmentation? (b) does it make sense to append new information like this, or is it more logical to keep the <direction> at the end? - Now url_buf no longer contains the url of the remote, but it still is called url_buf. It is merely a "temporary string" now. Is it a good idea to either rename it, stop reusing the same thing for different purposes, or do something else? - By adding this unconditionally, we would break the scripts that read the output from this command and expect there won't be extra information after the <direction>. It may be a good thing (they are not prepared to see the list-objects-filter, and the breakage may serve as a reminder that they need to update these scripts when they see breakage), or it may be an irritating regression. But stepping back a bit. Why do we want to give this in the "remote -v" output in the first place? When a reader really cares, they can ask "git config" for this extra piece of information. When you have more than one remote, "git remote -v" that gives the URL is a good way to remind which nickname you'd want to give to "git pull" or "git push". If it makes sense to add the extra <list-objects-filtrer> information, that would mean that there are probably two remote nicknames that refer to the same URL (i.e. "remote -v" readers cannot tell them apart without extra information), but how likely is that, I wonder? > diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > index 4a3778d04a8..bf8f3644d3c 100755 > --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > @@ -49,6 +49,17 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' > test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" > ' > > +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes is listed by git remote -v' ' > + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && > + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && > + grep "[blob:none]" out && > + > + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && > + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && > + grep "[object:type=commit]" out && > + rm -rf pc2 > +' > + > test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' > ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && > test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && > > base-commit: 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-04-30 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-01 15:57 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-01 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-01 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git Sorry for the late response. Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Three comments and a half on the code: > > - Is it likely that to new readers it would be obvious that what is > in the [square brackets] is the list-objects-filter used? When we > want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the > list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them? I do think that new readers can easily understand the meaning of the text inside the [square brackets]. These square brackets (with the list-objects-filter inside it) will be shown only if the remote is a promisor remote. So, users who don't use promisor remotes, will not be affected. Those who used the filters can only notice the change. They can easily understand it. In fact, I think it would give them an option to quickly check which are the promisor remotes and which are not. Though this change should be properly documented (which I forgot to add) so that they can be sure about it. > - The presentation order is <remote-name> then <direction> (fetch > or push) and then optionally <list-objects-filter>. > > (a) shouldn't the output format be described in the > doucmentation? > > (b) does it make sense to append new information like this, or > is it more logical to keep the <direction> at the end? Yeah, it should be documented. I forgot it :| Will add it in the next version. I think it is better to keep <list-objects-filter> at the end. Because I think, people first want to check whether the remote is (fetch) or (push). After that, they might want to know about the filter. Another point is that <list-objects-filter> is optional (i.e. only for promisor remotes). It would not make sense to put an optional info in between two permanent info (in this case, <remote-name> and <direction>). It would be difficult for scripts which parse the output of `git remote -v` on the basis of string positions. > - Now url_buf no longer contains the url of the remote, but it still > is called url_buf. It is merely a "temporary string" now. Is it > a good idea to either rename it, stop reusing the same thing for > different purposes, or do something else? Hmm, this can be a subject for discussion. Yes, it is true that the name `url_buf` is not suitable for the additional info it contains ( in the proposed change). I did it to use less memory. I think renaming it to `remote_info_buf` or similar is a better idea. > - By adding this unconditionally, we would break the scripts that > read the output from this command and expect there won't be extra > information after the <direction>. It may be a good thing (they > are not prepared to see the list-objects-filter, and the breakage > may serve as a reminder that they need to update these scripts > when they see breakage), or it may be an irritating regression. I agree. Frankly speaking, I have no counter argument for this. I can tell that the proposed change will be beneficial for the users who use promisor remotes along with other remotes. So, may be we can accept the short term consequences of it. What we can do is we can provide a proper documentation so that if anything bad happen to those scripts, devs can see the documentation and update the scripts accordingly. > But stepping back a bit. > > Why do we want to give this in the "remote -v" output in the first > place? When a reader really cares, they can ask "git config" for > this extra piece of information. When you have more than one > remote, "git remote -v" that gives the URL is a good way to remind > which nickname you'd want to give to "git pull" or "git push". `remote -v` helps users to get the overall idea of the remotes. We can see how many remotes are there, which remote name corresponds to which url etc. That is we can get a summary of remotes. Having that said, does not it make sense to add the extra <list-objects-filter> here? Users can easily understand which are promisor remotes ( along with their filter type) and which are not. Of course, they can use git config for that. But it would be a tidious job to check the the type of remotes (i.e. which are promisor remotes and which are not) one by one. If the user try to search for the promisor remotes in the config file, he/she have to go through the other configuration settings (irrelevant to him/her at that time) to reach the `[remote]` section. Isn't it? > ... If > it makes sense to add the extra <list-objects-filtrer> information, > that would mean that there are probably two remote nicknames that > refer to the same URL (i.e. "remote -v" readers cannot tell them > apart without extra information), but how likely is that, I wonder? I think, having a proper documentation about the new changes is the answer to it. Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-01 15:57 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-01 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-01 19:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-01 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty; +Cc: Git Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> writes: > Sorry for the late response. > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Three comments and a half on the code: >> >> - Is it likely that to new readers it would be obvious that what is >> in the [square brackets] is the list-objects-filter used? When we >> want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the >> list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them? > > I do think that new readers can easily understand the meaning of the > text inside the [square brackets]. These square brackets (with the > list-objects-filter inside it) will be shown only if the remote is > a promisor remote. So, users who don't use promisor remotes, will not > be affected. Those who used the filters can only notice the change. > They can easily understand it. In fact, I think it would give them an > option to quickly check which are the promisor remotes and which are not. > Though this change should be properly documented (which I forgot to > add) so that they can be sure about it. You forgot to answer more important half of the question. It would be easy for you to know what the string inside brackets means because you are so obsessed with the promisor remote to write this patch ;-) But when we need to add even more pieces of information in the future, will it stay so? Can "[some-random-string]" easily be identified as a list-objects-filter by those who do not care particularly about promisor remotes (e.g. those who wanted to see the URL to tell multiple remote nicknames apart) when the line has even more piece of information in the future? At some point, we'd need to either (1) stop adding too many details to avoid cluttering the output line, or (2) start labeling each piece of information to make it easy for the readers to identify which one is which [*]. We need to ask ourselves why now is not that "some point" already. Side note: and the strategy to add new pieces of information need to take the same approach between the two, and that is why we need "what is the plan to add new pieces of information?" answered. > (i.e. which are promisor remotes and which are not) one by one. If the > user try to search for the promisor remotes in the config file, he/she > have to go through the other configuration settings (irrelevant to him/her > at that time) to reach the `[remote]` section. Isn't it? Sorry, but the question does not make much sense to me. Why is a piece of information you get from "git config" irrelevant if you get it in order to figure out what you want to know, i.e. what promisor remote do we rely on? >> ... If >> it makes sense to add the extra <list-objects-filtrer> information, >> that would mean that there are probably two remote nicknames that >> refer to the same URL (i.e. "remote -v" readers cannot tell them >> apart without extra information), but how likely is that, I wonder? > > I think, having a proper documentation about the new changes is the > answer to it. The question is "what can readers achieve by having this extra information in 'remote -v' output". Do you have to duck the question because you cannot answer in a simple sentence, and instead readers must read reams of documentation pages? I doubt it would be that obscure. I wanted to like the patch, the changed text is simple enough, but quite honestly, the lack of clarity in the answers to the most basic "why do we want this? what is this good for? how does this help the users?" questions, I am not yet succeeding to do so. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-01 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-01 19:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-02 10:33 ` Philip Oakley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-01 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > You forgot to answer more important half of the question. It would > be easy for you to know what the string inside brackets means > because you are so obsessed with the promisor remote to write this > patch ;-) But when we need to add even more pieces of information in > the future, will it stay so? Can "[some-random-string]" easily be > identified as a list-objects-filter by those who do not care > particularly about promisor remotes (e.g. those who wanted to see > the URL to tell multiple remote nicknames apart) when the line has > even more piece of information in the future? > > At some point, we'd need to either (1) stop adding too many details > to avoid cluttering the output line, or (2) start labeling each > piece of information to make it easy for the readers to identify > which one is which [*]. We need to ask ourselves why now is not > that "some point" already. > > Side note: and the strategy to add new pieces of information > need to take the same approach between the two, and that is why > we need "what is the plan to add new pieces of information?" > answered. I am sorry if I failed to explain you what I really wanted to mean. Yes, I forgot to answer the last question which is "When we want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them?". So let me answer this now. As `-v` flag gives a kind of overall summary of the remotes, users expect that the most important and most basic information should be listed in the output of `remote -v`. So, there may be some other more important informations in the future that we have to add to `remote -v` output. In that case, method (1) would not be a great idea I think (unless a new flag has been created). method (2) is better. > > (i.e. which are promisor remotes and which are not) one by one. If the > > user try to search for the promisor remotes in the config file, he/she > > have to go through the other configuration settings (irrelevant to him/her > > at that time) to reach the `[remote]` section. Isn't it? > > Sorry, but the question does not make much sense to me. Why is a > piece of information you get from "git config" irrelevant if you get > it in order to figure out what you want to know, i.e. what promisor > remote do we rely on? Let me explain what I really meant here - I am guessing that you have no problem with the upper part of that para. If we forget about my proposed change, there are two possible ways to find out the info about promisor remotes - (1) Use `git config --get remote.<remote-name>.partialCloneFilter` This command gives an output only if <remote-name> is a promisor remote. So in case the user forget which one is a promisor remote, he/she has to try this command with each and every <remote-name> to find out which is/are the promisor remote(s). (2) Open the git config file (either manually or by running `git config --edit` In this case, the user has to go through all the settings until the [remote "<remote-name>"] section is found. E.g. let's say below is the config file - [core] repositoryformatversion = 0 filemode = true bare = false logallrefupdates = true ignorecase = true precomposeunicode = true [remote "upstream"] url = https://github.com/git/git.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/upstream/* [branch "master"] remote = upstream merge = refs/heads/master [remote "origin"] url = https://github.com/Abhra303/git.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* partialCloneFilter = blob:none To find out whether "origin" is promisor or not, he has to go to the [remote "origin"] section. Here all the configuations under `[core]`, `[remote "upstream"]` and `[branch "master"] are irrelevant to him/her at that time (because he/she is not interested to know about those configuration settings at that time). The proposed change is simpler compared to the above as it lists down all the remotes along with their list-objects-filter. Another point is that it's important for an user to know which one is a promisor remote and what filter type they use. If we go with the current implementation the output would be let's say - origin <remote-url> (fetch) origin <remote-url> (push) upstream <remote-url> (fetch) upstream <remote-url> (push) By seeing the above output anyone may assume that all the remotes are normal remotes. If the user now try to run `git pull origin` and suddenly he/she discover that some blobs are not downloaded. He/she run the above mentioned (1) command and find that this is a promisor remote! Here `remote -v` didn't warn the user about the origin remote being an promisor remote. Instead it makes him/her assume that all are normal remotes. Providing only these three info (i.e. <remote-name>, <remote-url> and <direction>) is not sufficient - it only shows the half of the picture. > The question is "what can readers achieve by having this extra > information in 'remote -v' output". Do you have to duck the > question because you cannot answer in a simple sentence, and instead > readers must read reams of documentation pages? I doubt it would be > that obscure. Sorry, I misunderstood that section of your first comment. I think I hopefully answered this question in the above portion of this comment. Providing only the three information about remotes is not sufficient as it do not distinguish between promisor remotes and normal remotes. In that sense, it will add simplicity and the user would be much more clear about the remotes(i.e. which is promisor remote and which is not). > I wanted to like the patch, the changed text is simple enough, but > quite honestly, the lack of clarity in the answers to the most basic > "why do we want this? what is this good for? how does this help the > users?" questions, I am not yet succeeding to do so. My bad! Hope I am now able to answer all the questions you asked. Let me know if you still struggle to get my point. Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-01 19:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-02 10:33 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-02 14:56 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-02 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Git On 01/05/2022 20:38, Abhradeep Chakraborty wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > >> You forgot to answer more important half of the question. It would >> be easy for you to know what the string inside brackets means >> because you are so obsessed with the promisor remote to write this >> patch ;-) But when we need to add even more pieces of information in >> the future, will it stay so? Can "[some-random-string]" easily be >> identified as a list-objects-filter by those who do not care >> particularly about promisor remotes (e.g. those who wanted to see >> the URL to tell multiple remote nicknames apart) when the line has >> even more piece of information in the future? >> >> At some point, we'd need to either (1) stop adding too many details >> to avoid cluttering the output line, or (2) start labeling each >> piece of information to make it easy for the readers to identify >> which one is which [*]. We need to ask ourselves why now is not >> that "some point" already. >> >> Side note: and the strategy to add new pieces of information >> need to take the same approach between the two, and that is why >> we need "what is the plan to add new pieces of information?" >> answered. > I am sorry if I failed to explain you what I really wanted to mean. > Yes, I forgot to answer the last question which is "When we > want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the > list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them?". > > So let me answer this now. As `-v` flag gives a kind of overall summary > of the remotes, users expect that the most important and most basic > information should be listed in the output of `remote -v`. So, there > may be some other more important informations in the future that we > have to add to `remote -v` output. In that case, method (1) would not > be a great idea I think (unless a new flag has been created). method > (2) is better. When I use the `git remote` command, I use the -vv variant to what what I need, i.e. its more than `-v`, so maybe adding an extra `--show-partial-filter` option may be necessary (with a more compact name ;-). There will also be a similar desire (IIUC) to match the sparse/cone mode repos to their remotes, i.e. to remind a user that what is held at the remote isn't the same as held locally. > >>> (i.e. which are promisor remotes and which are not) one by one. If the >>> user try to search for the promisor remotes in the config file, he/she >>> have to go through the other configuration settings (irrelevant to him/her >>> at that time) to reach the `[remote]` section. Isn't it? >> Sorry, but the question does not make much sense to me. Why is a >> piece of information you get from "git config" irrelevant if you get >> it in order to figure out what you want to know, i.e. what promisor >> remote do we rely on? > Let me explain what I really meant here - I am guessing that you have no > problem with the upper part of that para. > > If we forget about my proposed change, there are two possible ways to find > out the info about promisor remotes - > (1) Use `git config --get remote.<remote-name>.partialCloneFilter` > > This command gives an output only if <remote-name> is a promisor > remote. So in case the user forget which one is a promisor > remote, he/she has to try this command with each and every > <remote-name> to find out which is/are the promisor remote(s). I hear your pain here. I had the same issue with the branch description. (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15058844/print-branch-description). It's the same 'extract from config' problem. ```You can display the branch description using a git config command. To show all branch descriptions, I have the alias brshow = config --get-regexp 'branch.*.description' , and for the current HEAD I have brshow1 = !git config --get "branch.$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD).description". ``` so it is possible to generalise the config query, if hard to discover. <https://stackoverflow.com/a/15062356/717355> > > (2) Open the git config file (either manually or by running `git > config --edit` > > In this case, the user has to go through all the settings until > the [remote "<remote-name>"] section is found. E.g. let's say > below is the config file - > > [core] > repositoryformatversion = 0 > filemode = true > bare = false > logallrefupdates = true > ignorecase = true > precomposeunicode = true > [remote "upstream"] > url = https://github.com/git/git.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/upstream/* > [branch "master"] > remote = upstream > merge = refs/heads/master > [remote "origin"] > url = https://github.com/Abhra303/git.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* > partialCloneFilter = blob:none > > To find out whether "origin" is promisor or not, he has to go > to the [remote "origin"] section. Here all the configuations > under `[core]`, `[remote "upstream"]` and `[branch "master"] > are irrelevant to him/her at that time (because he/she is not > interested to know about those configuration settings at that > time). > > The proposed change is simpler compared to the above as it lists down all > the remotes along with their list-objects-filter. Another point is that > it's important for an user to know which one is a promisor remote and what > filter type they use. If we go with the current implementation the output > would be let's say - > origin <remote-url> (fetch) > origin <remote-url> (push) > upstream <remote-url> (fetch) > upstream <remote-url> (push) > > By seeing the above output anyone may assume that all the remotes are > normal remotes. If the user now try to run `git pull origin` and suddenly > he/she discover that some blobs are not downloaded. He/she run the above > mentioned (1) command and find that this is a promisor remote! > > Here `remote -v` didn't warn the user about the origin remote being an > promisor remote. Instead it makes him/her assume that all are normal > remotes. Providing only these three info (i.e. <remote-name>, <remote-url> > and <direction>) is not sufficient - it only shows the half of the picture. > > >> The question is "what can readers achieve by having this extra >> information in 'remote -v' output". Do you have to duck the >> question because you cannot answer in a simple sentence, and instead >> readers must read reams of documentation pages? I doubt it would be >> that obscure. > Sorry, I misunderstood that section of your first comment. I think > I hopefully answered this question in the above portion of this comment. > Providing only the three information about remotes is not sufficient > as it do not distinguish between promisor remotes and normal remotes. > In that sense, it will add simplicity and the user would be much more > clear about the remotes(i.e. which is promisor remote and which is not). > >> I wanted to like the patch, the changed text is simple enough, but >> quite honestly, the lack of clarity in the answers to the most basic >> "why do we want this? what is this good for? how does this help the >> users?" questions, I am not yet succeeding to do so. > My bad! Hope I am now able to answer all the questions you asked. Let > me know if you still struggle to get my point. > > Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-02 10:33 ` Philip Oakley @ 2022-05-02 14:56 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-02 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Junio C Hamano Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote: > When I use the `git remote` command, I use the -vv variant to what what > I need, i.e. its more than `-v`, so maybe adding an extra > `--show-partial-filter` option may be necessary (with a more compact > name ;-). If adding new informations to `-v` is not possible (to avoid messy output), atleast including it to `-vv` makes sense to me (though I am not sure if `git remote -vv` is currently implemented). > There will also be a similar desire (IIUC) to match the sparse/cone mode > repos to their remotes, i.e. to remind a user that what is held at the > remote isn't the same as held locally. Yeah, maybe. > I hear your pain here. I had the same issue with the branch description. > (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15058844/print-branch-description). > It's the same 'extract from config' problem. > > ```You can display the branch description using a git config command. > > To show all branch descriptions, I have the alias > > brshow = config --get-regexp 'branch.*.description' > > , and for the current HEAD I have > > brshow1 = !git config --get "branch.$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref > HEAD).description". ``` > > so it is possible to generalise the config query, if hard to discover. > <https://stackoverflow.com/a/15062356/717355> Thanks for the info. I tried your suggestion and it worked. But still, it is better to include <list-object-filter> in the output. This is because of the second point I mentioned in my previous comment. Users can be much more clear about the types of available remotes overall. IMO specifying filters for remotes is far more important than the branch description. The behaviour of `git fetch` depends on it. If we can specify `(fetch)` in the output then why not the filter of that `fetch` on which the behaviour of `fetch` functionality highly depends? Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-04-30 13:19 [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-04-30 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-03 15:20 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-04 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-03 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Cc: Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Abhradeep Chakraborty, Abhradeep Chakraborty From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with their urls. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter types for promisor remotes. Something like this - origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] origin remote-url (push) Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> --- builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes Fixes #1211 [1] In this version, documentation is updated (describing the proposed change) and url_buf is renamed into remote_info_buf. [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1227%2FAbhra303%2Fpromisor_remote-v2 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1227/Abhra303/promisor_remote-v2 Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1227 Range-diff vs v1: 1: fe3bf755e63 ! 1: e7ced852fd5 builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes @@ Commit message Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> + ## Documentation/git-remote.txt ## +@@ Documentation/git-remote.txt: OPTIONS + -v:: + --verbose:: + Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. ++ For promisor remotes it will show an extra information ++ (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter ++ (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. + NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. + + + ## builtin/remote.c ## -@@ builtin/remote.c: static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) +@@ builtin/remote.c: static int show_push_info_item(struct string_list_item *item, void *cb_data) + static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) + { + struct string_list *list = priv; +- struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT; ++ struct strbuf remote_info_buf = STRBUF_INIT; + const char **url; int i, url_nr; if (remote->url_nr > 0) { +- strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; + + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); ++ strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) -+ strbuf_addf(&url_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); ++ strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); + + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); +- strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); ++ strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } else + string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = NULL; + if (remote->pushurl_nr) { +@@ builtin/remote.c: static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) + } + for (i = 0; i < url_nr; i++) + { +- strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); ++ strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); + string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = +- strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); ++ strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); + } + + return 0; ## t/t5616-partial-clone.sh ## @@ t/t5616-partial-clone.sh: test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' Documentation/git-remote.txt | 3 +++ builtin/remote.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- t/t5616-partial-clone.sh | 11 +++++++++++ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt index cde9614e362..71a0e85990d 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ OPTIONS -v:: --verbose:: Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. + For promisor remotes it will show an extra information + (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter + (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c index 5f4cde9d784..d4b69fe7789 100644 --- a/builtin/remote.c +++ b/builtin/remote.c @@ -1185,14 +1185,22 @@ static int show_push_info_item(struct string_list_item *item, void *cb_data) static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) { struct string_list *list = priv; - struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT; + struct strbuf remote_info_buf = STRBUF_INIT; const char **url; int i, url_nr; if (remote->url_nr > 0) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; + + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); + + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } else string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = NULL; if (remote->pushurl_nr) { @@ -1204,9 +1212,9 @@ static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) } for (i = 0; i < url_nr; i++) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } return 0; diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh index 4a3778d04a8..bf8f3644d3c 100755 --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh @@ -49,6 +49,17 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" ' +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes is listed by git remote -v' ' + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "[blob:none]" out && + + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "[object:type=commit]" out && + rm -rf pc2 +' + test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && base-commit: 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-03 15:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-04 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-05 14:12 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-04 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget Cc: git, Philip Oakley, Abhradeep Chakraborty "Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > index cde9614e362..71a0e85990d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ OPTIONS > -v:: > --verbose:: > Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. > + For promisor remotes it will show an extra information > + (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter > + (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. > NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. Broken indentation. You can save embarrassment by double checking what you committed by sending e-mail to yourself (or checking output from "git show") before sending it to the list. > diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c > index 5f4cde9d784..d4b69fe7789 100644 > --- a/builtin/remote.c > +++ b/builtin/remote.c > @@ -1185,14 +1185,22 @@ static int show_push_info_item(struct string_list_item *item, void *cb_data) > static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) > { > struct string_list *list = priv; > - struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT; > + struct strbuf remote_info_buf = STRBUF_INIT; > const char **url; > int i, url_nr; > > if (remote->url_nr > 0) { > - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); > + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; > + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; > + > + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); > + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); > + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) > + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); > + > + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); > string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = > - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); > + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); It is unfortunate that the "we borrow without copying" variant of git_config_get_string() is called git_config_get_string_tmp(), which is an utterly misleading name that might confuse readers into mistaking it may make a temporary copy for the caller to release. Perhaps we would want to rename it to git_config_peek_string() or something, but that is totally outside the topic, of course. In any case, what I wanted to say is that I just made sure that the value in the partial_clone_filter variable is not leaked. Looking good. > diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > index 4a3778d04a8..bf8f3644d3c 100755 > --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh > @@ -49,6 +49,17 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' > test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" > ' > > +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes is listed by git remote -v' ' > + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && > + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && > + grep "[blob:none]" out && > + > + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && > + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && > + grep "[object:type=commit]" out && > + rm -rf pc2 > +' I doubt that these "grep" do what you think it is doing. It would say "I am happy" on any line that has one of these characters listed inside the []. Do not clean up with an extra "&& clean up" step at the end of &&-cascade. Instead use test_when_finished to make sure that after any failure in the cascade the clean-up step would still trigger. test_expect_success 'title' ' test_when_finished "rm -fr pc2" && git clone ... && ... grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out ' or something. Having tests that show how this new feature works is of course necessary, but we must have negative tests that ensure that it does *not* trigger when it should not. E.g. the new [filter-spec] should not be given for a remote if the user didn't ask for "-v", or the remote is not a promisor. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-04 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-05 14:12 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-05 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Philip Oakley Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Broken indentation. You can save embarrassment by double checking > what you committed by sending e-mail to yourself (or checking output > from "git show") before sending it to the list. Thanks for the suggestions. Will keep it in mind next time. > I doubt that these "grep" do what you think it is doing. It would > say "I am happy" on any line that has one of these characters listed > inside the []. > > Do not clean up with an extra "&& clean up" step at the end of > &&-cascade. Instead use test_when_finished to make sure that after > any failure in the cascade the clean-up step would still trigger. > > test_expect_success 'title' ' > test_when_finished "rm -fr pc2" && > git clone ... && > ... > grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out > ' > > or something. > > Having tests that show how this new feature works is of course > necessary, but we must have negative tests that ensure that it does > *not* trigger when it should not. E.g. the new [filter-spec] should > not be given for a remote if the user didn't ask for "-v", or the > remote is not a promisor. Got it. Will send the necessary changes by the day after tommorow. Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-03 15:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-04 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-07 14:20 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-07 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Cc: Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Abhradeep Chakraborty, Abhradeep Chakraborty From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with their urls. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter types for promisor remotes. Something like this - origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] origin remote-url (push) Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> --- builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes Fixes #1211 [1] In the previous version, documentation is updated (describing the proposed change) and url_buf is renamed into remote_info_buf. In this varsion, some more test cases are added and broken indentations are fixed. [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1227%2FAbhra303%2Fpromisor_remote-v3 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1227/Abhra303/promisor_remote-v3 Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1227 Range-diff vs v2: 1: e7ced852fd5 ! 1: 9ac6ca9a08e builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes @@ Documentation/git-remote.txt: OPTIONS -v:: --verbose:: Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. -+ For promisor remotes it will show an extra information -+ (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter -+ (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. ++ For promisor remotes it will show an extra information ++ (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter ++ (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. @@ t/t5616-partial-clone.sh: test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" ' -+test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes is listed by git remote -v' ' ++test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes are listed by git remote -v' ' ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && -+ grep "[blob:none]" out && ++ grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[blob:none\]" out && + + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && -+ grep "[object:type=commit]" out && -+ rm -rf pc2 ++ grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out ++' ++ ++test_expect_success 'filters should not be listed for non promisor remotes (remote -v)' ' ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && ++ git clone "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && ++ git -C pc2 remote -v >out && ++ ! grep "(fetch) \[.*\]" out ++' ++ ++test_expect_success 'filters are listed by git remote -v only' ' ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && ++ git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && ++ git -C pc2 remote >out && ++ ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out && ++ ++ git -C pc2 remote show >out && ++ ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out +' + test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' Documentation/git-remote.txt | 3 +++ builtin/remote.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- t/t5616-partial-clone.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt index cde9614e362..a125bd839f7 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ OPTIONS -v:: --verbose:: Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. + For promisor remotes it will show an extra information + (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter + (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c index 5f4cde9d784..d4b69fe7789 100644 --- a/builtin/remote.c +++ b/builtin/remote.c @@ -1185,14 +1185,22 @@ static int show_push_info_item(struct string_list_item *item, void *cb_data) static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) { struct string_list *list = priv; - struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT; + struct strbuf remote_info_buf = STRBUF_INIT; const char **url; int i, url_nr; if (remote->url_nr > 0) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; + + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); + + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } else string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = NULL; if (remote->pushurl_nr) { @@ -1204,9 +1212,9 @@ static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) } for (i = 0; i < url_nr; i++) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } return 0; diff --git a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh index 4a3778d04a8..26756d616cd 100755 --- a/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh +++ b/t/t5616-partial-clone.sh @@ -49,6 +49,34 @@ test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" ' +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes are listed by git remote -v' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[blob:none\]" out && + + git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters should not be listed for non promisor remotes (remote -v)' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && + git clone "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote -v >out && + ! grep "(fetch) \[.*\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters are listed by git remote -v only' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && + git -C pc2 remote >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out && + + git -C pc2 remote show >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out +' + test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && base-commit: 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 16:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-08 15:44 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 11:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-08 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget, git Cc: Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Abhradeep Chakraborty Hi Abhradeep, Le 2022-05-07 à 10:20, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget a écrit : > From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> > > `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with > their urls. small nit: I would capitalize URLs. > It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter > types for promisor remotes. Something like this - > > origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] > origin remote-url (push) > > Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. > > Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> > --- > builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes > > Fixes #1211 [1] I don't think this matters much, but if Junio is OK with that, it would be nice to include the reference to the GitGitGadget issue in the commit message itself, though with its full URL, something like: Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 as another trailer before your signed-off-by. By including it in the commit message we allow the issue to be closed automatically when your topic branch is merged to 'master'. By using the full link we make sure that GitHub knows we are targetting that issue specifically, not any other issue or PR in any fork of Git with the same number. > > In the previous version, documentation is updated (describing the > proposed change) and url_buf is renamed into remote_info_buf. In this > varsion, some more test cases are added and broken indentations are > fixed. Again, small nit to make it easier for reviewers: usually we prefer to see what has changed since the previous version first, and then (if you want, it's not strictly necessary) what changed in the other previous versions. It's not necessary since if we want that info we can refer to the cover letters of the previous iterations directly. And ideally, in bullet points. So something like: Changes since v2: - added more test cases - fixed broken indentations Changes since v1: - updated documentation - renamed url_buf into remote_info_buf > > [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 > > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1227%2FAbhra303%2Fpromisor_remote-v3 > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1227/Abhra303/promisor_remote-v3 > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1227 Thanks, Philippe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 16:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-09 16:45 ` Philippe Blain 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-09 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philippe Blain Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget, git, Philip Oakley, Abhradeep Chakraborty Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> writes: >> Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> >> --- >> builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes >> >> Fixes #1211 [1] > > I don't think this matters much, but if Junio is OK with that, it would > be nice to include the reference to the GitGitGadget issue in the commit > message itself, though with its full URL, something like: > > Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 > > as another trailer before your signed-off-by. By including it in the > commit message we allow the issue to be closed automatically when your topic > branch is merged to 'master'. By using the full link we make sure that GitHub > knows we are targetting that issue specifically, not any other issue or PR in > any fork of Git with the same number. Nice to know. Is there a handy GGG users' guide that mentions these "magic trailers" (the other one I have seen used is "Cc:")? > Again, small nit to make it easier for reviewers: usually we prefer to see > what has changed since the previous version first, and then (if you want, > it's not strictly necessary) what changed in the other previous versions. Yup. For a single-patch topic, the following may not apply, but for a multi-patch topic, a full "topic overview" should also be available in the cover letter of the latest version. A reviewer who was absent while older iterations were reviewed should not have to fish for cover letters of previous iterations to learn what the topic is about to decide if the topic is worth their time to review. Once they get interested enough, they can of course dig older iterations, but the job of the cover letter in each iteration is to allow them to become interested with the least effort. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 16:29 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-09 16:45 ` Philippe Blain 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget, git, Philip Oakley, Abhradeep Chakraborty Hi Junio, Le 2022-05-09 à 12:29, Junio C Hamano a écrit : > Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes >>> >>> Fixes #1211 [1] >> >> I don't think this matters much, but if Junio is OK with that, it would >> be nice to include the reference to the GitGitGadget issue in the commit >> message itself, though with its full URL, something like: >> >> Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 >> >> as another trailer before your signed-off-by. By including it in the >> commit message we allow the issue to be closed automatically when your topic >> branch is merged to 'master'. By using the full link we make sure that GitHub >> knows we are targetting that issue specifically, not any other issue or PR in >> any fork of Git with the same number. > > Nice to know. Is there a handy GGG users' guide that mentions these > "magic trailers" (the other one I have seen used is "Cc:")? "CC:" is GGG-specific, it is mentioned on the GGG homepage, https://gitgitgadget.github.io/, under "How can you use GitGitGadget?". It's also mentioned on the Welcome message GGG adds to the PR for new contributors [1]. "Fixes", "Closes" etc. are GitHub features (though GitLab implements the same feature), see [2], [3]. [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/blob/main/res/WELCOME.md#welcome-to-gitgitgadget [2] https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue-using-a-keyword [3] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/managing_issues.html#closing-issues-automatically Philippe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-08 15:44 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 9:13 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 11:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-08 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget, git Cc: Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Abhradeep Chakraborty Forgot to comment on the patch itself :P Le 2022-05-07 à 10:20, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget a écrit : > From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> > > Documentation/git-remote.txt | 3 +++ > builtin/remote.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > t/t5616-partial-clone.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I think the tests woud fit better in t5505-remote.sh, since the patch really adds a feature to the 'git remote' command. > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > index cde9614e362..a125bd839f7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ OPTIONS > -v:: > --verbose:: > Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. > + For promisor remotes it will show an extra information I found it sligtly awkward to use the future tense here. Maybe just: For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use, wrapped in square brackets. And technically, it's not really the remote that "uses" the filter, but more the local Git client. So maybe something like this would be more accurate and simpler: For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.) are configured, wrapped in square brackets. And even then "wrapped in square brackets" *could* be dropped, I think. Apart from that, the patch and test look good, thanks for working on that! Cheers, Philippe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-08 15:44 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 9:13 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-09 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philippe Blain; +Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Junio C Hamano, Philip Oakley Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the tests woud fit better in t5505-remote.sh, since the patch really > adds a feature to the 'git remote' command. I think you're right. Thanks! > I found it sligtly awkward to use the future tense here. Maybe just: > > For promisor remotes, also show which filter > (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use, wrapped in square brackets. > > And technically, it's not really the remote that "uses" the filter, > but more the local Git client. So maybe something like this would > be more accurate and simpler: > > For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.) > are configured, wrapped in square brackets. > > And even then "wrapped in square brackets" *could* be dropped, I > think. Got it. Thanks for the suggestions about both the PR and the patch. Will update it. Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-08 15:44 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 11:32 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-09 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Cc: Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Philippe Blain, Abhradeep Chakraborty, Abhradeep Chakraborty From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with their URLs. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter types for promisor remotes. Something like this - origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] origin remote-url (push) Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> --- builtin/remote.c: teach -v to list filters for promisor remotes Fixes #1211 [1] Changes since v3: * tests are moved to t5505-remote.sh * Documentation improved * Added Closes trailer in the commit message Changes since v2: * added more test cases * fixed broken indentations Changes since v1: * updated documentation * renamed url_buf into remote_info_buf [1] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1227%2FAbhra303%2Fpromisor_remote-v4 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1227/Abhra303/promisor_remote-v4 Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1227 Range-diff vs v3: 1: 9ac6ca9a08e ! 1: a067435285b builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes @@ Commit message builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with - their urls. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter + their URLs. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter types for promisor remotes. Something like this - origin remote-url (fetch) [blob:none] @@ Commit message Teach `git remote -v` to also specify the filters for promisor remotes. + Closes: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/1211 Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> ## Documentation/git-remote.txt ## @@ Documentation/git-remote.txt: OPTIONS -v:: --verbose:: Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. -+ For promisor remotes it will show an extra information -+ (wrapped in square brackets) describing which filter -+ (`blob:none` etc.) that promisor remote use. ++ For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.) ++ are configured. NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. @@ builtin/remote.c: static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) return 0; - ## t/t5616-partial-clone.sh ## -@@ t/t5616-partial-clone.sh: test_expect_success 'do partial clone 1' ' - test "$(git -C pc1 config --local remote.origin.partialclonefilter)" = "blob:none" + ## t/t5505-remote.sh ## +@@ t/t5505-remote.sh: test_expect_success 'add another remote' ' + ) ' ++test_expect_success 'setup bare clone for server' ' ++ git clone --bare "file://$(pwd)/one" srv.bare && ++ git -C srv.bare config --local uploadpack.allowfilter 1 && ++ git -C srv.bare config --local uploadpack.allowanysha1inwant 1 ++' ++ +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes are listed by git remote -v' ' -+ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && -+ git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && -+ git -C pc2 remote -v >out && ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && ++ git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc && ++ git -C pc remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[blob:none\]" out && + -+ git -C pc2 config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && -+ git -C pc2 remote -v >out && ++ git -C pc config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && ++ git -C pc remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters should not be listed for non promisor remotes (remote -v)' ' -+ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && -+ git clone "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && -+ git -C pc2 remote -v >out && ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && ++ git clone one pc && ++ git -C pc remote -v >out && + ! grep "(fetch) \[.*\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters are listed by git remote -v only' ' -+ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc2" && -+ git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc2 && -+ git -C pc2 remote >out && ++ test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && ++ git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc && ++ git -C pc remote >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out && + -+ git -C pc2 remote show >out && ++ git -C pc remote show >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out +' + - test_expect_success 'verify that .promisor file contains refs fetched' ' - ls pc1/.git/objects/pack/pack-*.promisor >promisorlist && - test_line_count = 1 promisorlist && + test_expect_success 'check remote-tracking' ' + ( + cd test && Documentation/git-remote.txt | 2 ++ builtin/remote.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- t/t5505-remote.sh | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt index cde9614e362..1dec3148348 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ OPTIONS -v:: --verbose:: Be a little more verbose and show remote url after name. + For promisor remotes, also show which filter (`blob:none` etc.) + are configured. NOTE: This must be placed between `remote` and subcommand. diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c index 5f4cde9d784..d4b69fe7789 100644 --- a/builtin/remote.c +++ b/builtin/remote.c @@ -1185,14 +1185,22 @@ static int show_push_info_item(struct string_list_item *item, void *cb_data) static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) { struct string_list *list = priv; - struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT; + struct strbuf remote_info_buf = STRBUF_INIT; const char **url; int i, url_nr; if (remote->url_nr > 0) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + struct strbuf promisor_config = STRBUF_INIT; + const char *partial_clone_filter = NULL; + + strbuf_addf(&promisor_config, "remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote->name); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]); + if (!git_config_get_string_tmp(promisor_config.buf, &partial_clone_filter)) + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, " [%s]", partial_clone_filter); + + strbuf_release(&promisor_config); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } else string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = NULL; if (remote->pushurl_nr) { @@ -1204,9 +1212,9 @@ static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv) } for (i = 0; i < url_nr; i++) { - strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); + strbuf_addf(&remote_info_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]); string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = - strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL); + strbuf_detach(&remote_info_buf, NULL); } return 0; diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh index c90cf47acdb..fff14e13ed4 100755 --- a/t/t5505-remote.sh +++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh @@ -78,6 +78,40 @@ test_expect_success 'add another remote' ' ) ' +test_expect_success 'setup bare clone for server' ' + git clone --bare "file://$(pwd)/one" srv.bare && + git -C srv.bare config --local uploadpack.allowfilter 1 && + git -C srv.bare config --local uploadpack.allowanysha1inwant 1 +' + +test_expect_success 'filters for promisor remotes are listed by git remote -v' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc && + git -C pc remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[blob:none\]" out && + + git -C pc config remote.origin.partialCloneFilter object:type=commit && + git -C pc remote -v >out && + grep "srv.bare (fetch) \[object:type=commit\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters should not be listed for non promisor remotes (remote -v)' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && + git clone one pc && + git -C pc remote -v >out && + ! grep "(fetch) \[.*\]" out +' + +test_expect_success 'filters are listed by git remote -v only' ' + test_when_finished "rm -rf pc" && + git clone --filter=blob:none "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc && + git -C pc remote >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out && + + git -C pc remote show >out && + ! grep "\[blob:none\]" out +' + test_expect_success 'check remote-tracking' ' ( cd test && base-commit: 0f828332d5ac36fc63b7d8202652efa152809856 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 11:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget @ 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Taylor Blau @ 2022-05-09 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget Cc: git, Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Philippe Blain, Abhradeep Chakraborty On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:32:48AM +0000, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> > > `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with > their URLs. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter > types for promisor remotes. Something like this - This version looks like it has addressed many (all?) of the comments previously discussed during review. On a quick scan, the code and tests look good to my eyes, too. But there was a good question raised by Phillip in https://lore.kernel.org/git/ab047b4b-6037-af78-1af6-ad35ac6d7c90@iee.email/ that I didn't see addressed in your response, which was "why not put this behind a new `--show-partial-filter` option"? I share (what I think is) Junio's feeling that having information that is readily available from e.g., running "git config --get remote.<name>.partialObjectFilter" seems redundant. I could understand forcing a user to know the config key's name feels like a hurdle. But cluttering the output of `git remote -v` seems like the wrong solution to that hurdle. But I can see where it _would_ be useful. So it would be nice to be able to turn the extra output on in those cases, but _only_ those cases, and a flag would be a nice way to go about doing that. Thanks, Taylor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau @ 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-09 17:21 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 17:44 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Taylor Blau, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget Cc: git, Philip Oakley, Junio C Hamano, Abhradeep Chakraborty Hi Taylor, Le 2022-05-09 à 11:34, Taylor Blau a écrit : > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:32:48AM +0000, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> >> >> `git remote -v` (`--verbose`) lists down the names of remotes along with >> their URLs. It would be beneficial for users to also specify the filter >> types for promisor remotes. Something like this - > > This version looks like it has addressed many (all?) of the comments > previously discussed during review. On a quick scan, the code and tests > look good to my eyes, too. > > But there was a good question raised by Phillip in > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/ab047b4b-6037-af78-1af6-ad35ac6d7c90@iee.email/ > > that I didn't see addressed in your response, which was "why not put > this behind a new `--show-partial-filter` option"? I originally opened the issue on GGG that this series adresses. My justification, and asnwer to that question, is simple: 'git remote -v', for me, is a way to ask Git to give me all the information it knows about my configured remotes. That's why I thought that it would be really nice if partial clones filters would be shown. After all, 'git remote' is listed in the 'porcelain' section of the Git commands [1], and isn't the goal of declaring commands "porcelain" that we can make their output more useful to the users without worrying as much about backwards compatibility than with plumbing commands? > I share (what I think is) Junio's feeling that having information that > is readily available from e.g., running "git config --get > remote.<name>.partialObjectFilter" seems redundant. I could understand > forcing a user to know the config key's name feels like a hurdle. But > cluttering the output of `git remote -v` seems like the wrong solution > to that hurdle. As I said above, I have 'git rem' (my alias for 'git remote -v') in my muscle memory and use it when I want to have an outline of my configured remotes. I think it would be really easier to add the filters info to the existing output. It's really faster to type than using 'git config', and you do not have to remember which remote name to query. I think "clutter" is a little strong word here :) > But I can see where it _would_ be useful. So it would be nice to be able > to turn the extra output on in those cases, but _only_ those cases, and > a flag would be a nice way to go about doing that. If really this topic is blocked by "we do not want to change the default output of 'git remote -v'", then I agree it would be nice to be able to set 'remote.showFilters' (or similar) to get such output, I agree. Or, making 'git remote' act like 'git branch' and accept a second '-v', i.e. 'git remote -vv' would list filters (then I would just adjust my alias :P). Then we can outright declare "the output of 'git remote -vv' is subject to future changes to show more useful information", or similar, so we do not have to do the same dance the next time we want to add some other info. The downside of hiding such new features behing config values or additional flags is that it really, really limits their discoverability. This is something that I often think about and think we should really do better in Git, in general. For example, features like 'remote.pushDefault' or the 'diff=*' attribute for language-aware hunk headers (and funcname-limited log/blame etc) are immensely useful, but often even experienced and long-time Git users do not even know they exist, because they are not covered in "regular" Git tutorials... Cheers, Philippe. [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git#Documentation/git.txt-ahrefdocsgit-remotegit-remote1a ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-13 13:49 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-09 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philippe Blain Cc: Taylor Blau, Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget, git, Philip Oakley, Abhradeep Chakraborty Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> writes: > Or, making 'git remote' act like 'git branch' and accept a second '-v', i.e. > 'git remote -vv' would list filters (then I would just adjust my alias :P). > Then we can outright declare "the output of 'git remote -vv' is subject to > future changes to show more useful information", or similar, so we do not > have to do the same dance the next time we want to add some other info. Isn't it where we already are with "remote -v", though? I am not sure addition of excess information that may not be universally useful is a very welcome change, even with "remote -v -v". I am not worried about showing the "list-object-filter", but I worry about managing temptations of future developers to add other stuff. > The downside of hiding such new features behing config values or additional flags > is that it really, really limits their discoverability. This is something that I > often think about and think we should really do better in Git, in general. > For example, features like 'remote.pushDefault' or the 'diff=*' attribute > for language-aware hunk headers (and funcname-limited log/blame etc) are immensely > useful, but often even experienced and long-time Git users do not even know they exist, > because they are not covered in "regular" Git tutorials... Unfortunately, it is not exactly a solution for that to update the tutorial, because experienced and long-time users rightly consider themselves beyond tutorials and sometimes documentation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-13 13:49 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-13 18:37 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-13 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Taylor Blau, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Isn't it where we already are with "remote -v", though? I am not > sure addition of excess information that may not be universally > useful is a very welcome change, even with "remote -v -v". I am not > worried about showing the "list-object-filter", but I worry about > managing temptations of future developers to add other stuff. If future developers come up with some really useful stuff (i.e. universally useful), I think those should be added in the output irrespective of the no of existing info in the output. If the output becomes messy, we should focus on how we can make the output clear may be using tabular format. Else you can drop the idea and suggest them to introduce a new flag (depending on the situation). If you still have some doubt about my PR i.e. if you can not determine which category my PR belongs to, I can go with adding `show-partial-clone` flag. The downside would be that `remote -v` will not give the full summary in case of partial clone. If you like the tabular format approach, I am further going to propose a table format - +---------------+----------------------------------------------+ | remote name | remote info | +---------------+--------+--------+----------------------------+ | | | url | https://blah.com/blah.git | | origin | +--------+----------------------------+ | | | filter | blob:none | | | fetch +--------+----------------------------+ | | | . | | | | . (some important data) | | +--------+--------+----------------------------+ | | | url | https://blah.com/blah.git | | | push +--------+----------------------------+ | | | ... (some important data) | +---------------+--------+-------------------------------------+ In this way, user can see the summary of all remotes with visual ease. Of course it is not suitable for scripting. In that case we can use a new flag `--raw` which will let `-v` to provide a space/tab seperated sequence of info (similar to current format). Let me know if you (as in all) like/dislike my view and give your arguments regarding my proposal. Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-13 13:49 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-13 18:37 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-16 15:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-13 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty; +Cc: Git, Taylor Blau, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> writes: > Else you can drop the idea and suggest them to introduce a new flag > (depending on the situation). If you still have some doubt about my > PR i.e. if you can not determine which category my PR belongs to, I > can go with adding `show-partial-clone` flag. The downside would > be that `remote -v` will not give the full summary in case of partial > clone. If majority of partial-clone users find it unnecessary noise, then it may be an upside to give only reduced summary that is less than full that may be given by `remote -v -v`. Worse downside of adding it as an option is that it invites more options. It is less worse to add new ones to `remote -v -v` (or to `remote -v`, or not adding it at all) than adding another option, I would think. Perhaps tagged output that can be easier to parse would be better "extensible" output format for adding more random pieces of information than going tabular. I dunno. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-13 18:37 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2022-05-16 15:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-16 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Taylor Blau, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > If majority of partial-clone users find it unnecessary noise, then > it may be an upside to give only reduced summary that is less than > full that may be given by `remote -v -v`. Should I add this to `remote -v -v` then? `remote -vv` is currently not implemented I guess. > Perhaps tagged output that can be easier to parse would be better > "extensible" output format for adding more random pieces of > information than going tabular. I dunno. I am not sure what exactly you are refering by 'tagged output' but it is true that tabular form is hard to parse. That's why I suggested `--raw` flag which would be used for parsing. It would give the info following the currently implemented format. If you like the tagged output format, then should we implement `-vv` which would give the output as the tagged output format and also can be extended? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain @ 2022-05-09 17:21 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 22:22 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:44 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-09 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Taylor Blau Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Junio C Hamano, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > But there was a good question raised by Phillip in > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/ab047b4b-6037-af78-1af6-ad35ac6d7c90@iee.email/ > > that I didn't see addressed in your response, which was "why not put > this behind a new `--show-partial-filter` option"? Actually, I addressed it[1] - > ... Another point is that > it's important for an user to know which one is a promisor remote and what > filter type they use. If we go with the current implementation the output > would be let's say - > origin <remote-url> (fetch) > origin <remote-url> (push) > upstream <remote-url> (fetch) > upstream <remote-url> (push) > > By seeing the above output anyone may assume that all the remotes are > normal remotes. If the user now try to run `git pull origin` and suddenly > he/she discover that some blobs are not downloaded. He/she run the above > mentioned (1) command and find that this is a promisor remote! > > Here `remote -v` didn't warn the user about the origin remote being an > promisor remote. Instead it makes him/her assume that all are normal > remotes. Providing only these three info (i.e. <remote-name>, <remote-url> > and <direction>) is not sufficient - it only shows the half of the picture. If we use a new `--show-partial-clone` flag, users can get to know about promisor remotes only if he/she use this flag. As I said in the refered comment, it may happen that the user unfortunately use the flag AFTER the accident - to know about if that was the promisor remote! See this also[2] - > ... If > we can specify `(fetch)` in the output then why not the filter of that > `fetch` on which the behaviour of `fetch` functionality highly depends? Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > But I can see where it _would_ be useful. So it would be nice to be able > to turn the extra output on in those cases, but _only_ those cases, and > a flag would be a nice way to go about doing that. Adding the extra flag is not a good approach to me due to the above reason. But at the end of the day, all of you have a lots of experience in this field than me. You all could better tell which one is better approach. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220501193807.94369-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220502145624.12702-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com/ Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 17:21 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-09 22:22 ` Taylor Blau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Taylor Blau @ 2022-05-09 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhradeep Chakraborty; +Cc: Git, Junio C Hamano, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 10:51:57PM +0530, Abhradeep Chakraborty wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > > > But there was a good question raised by Phillip in > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/ab047b4b-6037-af78-1af6-ad35ac6d7c90@iee.email/ > > > > that I didn't see addressed in your response, which was "why not put > > this behind a new `--show-partial-filter` option"? > > Actually, I addressed it[1] - Ah, sorry that I missed it! I think Phillipe's GGG issue is probably a good signal that we are not making this information as discoverable to users as we could be. I share Junio's concern that this change may tempt future contributors to add more output still to "git remote", but perhaps not. So I'd be OK with this change as-is. > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220501193807.94369-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com/ Thanks, Taylor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 17:21 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-09 17:44 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread From: Abhradeep Chakraborty @ 2022-05-09 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Taylor Blau Cc: Abhradeep Chakraborty, Git, Junio C Hamano, Philip Oakley, Philippe Blain Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote: > This version looks like it has addressed many (all?) of the comments previously discussed during review. To my knowledge, yeah, I addressed all the comments :) Thanks :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-16 15:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-04-30 13:19 [PATCH] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-04-30 21:17 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-01 15:57 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-01 16:14 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-01 19:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-02 10:33 ` Philip Oakley 2022-05-02 14:56 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-03 15:20 ` [PATCH v2] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-04 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-05 14:12 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-07 14:20 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-08 15:33 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 16:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-09 16:45 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-08 15:44 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 9:13 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 11:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Abhradeep Chakraborty via GitGitGadget 2022-05-09 15:34 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:01 ` Philippe Blain 2022-05-09 17:52 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-13 13:49 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-13 18:37 ` Junio C Hamano 2022-05-16 15:38 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 17:21 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty 2022-05-09 22:22 ` Taylor Blau 2022-05-09 17:44 ` Abhradeep Chakraborty
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).