From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
Git mailing list <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:59:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xqfAqnoKBeOiO6f7tdyi_7M=wKpmnFoWBt6UHbOqbYCzQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200818174116.GA2473110@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:04:00PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
> > > > + /* apply any negative refspecs now to prune the list of refs */
> > > > + ref_map = apply_negative_refspecs(ref_map, rs);
> > > > +
> > > > ref_map = ref_remove_duplicates(ref_map);
> > >
> > > How was the ordering here decided? Should it result the same set if
> > > negative ones are excluded after duplicates are removed?
> >
> > Good question. This was what was done in peff's original patch. I need
> > to understand a bit more about what ref_remove_duplicates does to
> > really figure this out.
>
> The relevant commit is 2467a4fa03 (Remove duplicate ref matches in
> fetch, 2007-10-08), I think. We may end up with multiple refspecs
> requesting a particular ref. E.g.:
>
> git fetch origin refs/heads/master refs/heads/*
>
> I don't think the order should matter. If we apply negative refspecs
> first, then we'd either remove both copies or leave both untouched (and
> if the latter, then de-dup to a single). If we apply negative refspecs
> after de-duping, then we'd either remove the single or leave it in
> place. But the result is the same either way.
I'm not sure this is quite true in the case where destinations are
supplied. Suppose this case:
git fetch refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
refs/other/mybranch:refs/remotes/origin/mybranch
This would ofcourse error out due to de-duping where we determine that
both would fetch to the same place.. however if you also added a
negative refspec:
git fetch refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
refs/other/mybranch:refs/remotes/origin/mybranch ^refs/heads/mybranch
then shouldn't this work? meaning we should de-dupe only after we
apply negative refspecs in this case?
>
> > > > @@ -1441,6 +1445,8 @@ int match_push_refs(struct ref *src, struct ref **dst,
> > > > string_list_clear(&src_ref_index, 0);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + *dst = apply_negative_refspecs(*dst, rs);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > The block of code whose tail is shown in the pre-context has
> > > prepared "delete these refs because we no longer have them" to the
> > > other side under MATCH_REFS_PRUNE but that was done based on the
> > > *dst list before we applied the negative refspec. Is the ordering
> > > of these two correct, or should we filter the dst list with negative
> > > ones and use the resulting one in pruning operation?
> >
> > I think we need to swap the order here. I'll take a closer look.
>
> Hmm. I think the behavior we'd want is something like:
>
> # make sure the other side has three refs
> git branch prune/one HEAD
> git branch prune/two HEAD
> git branch prune/three HEAD
> git push dst.git refs/heads/prune/*
>
> # now drop two of ours, which are eligible for pruning
> git branch -d prune/one
> git branch -d prune/two
>
> # push with pruning, omitting "two"
> git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two
>
> # we should leave "two" but still deleted "one"
> test_write_lines one three >expect
> git -C dst.git for-each-ref --format='%(refname:lstrip=3)' refs/heads/prune/ >actual
> test_cmp expect actual
>
> I.e., the negative refspec shrinks the space we're considering pruning.
> And we'd probably want a similar test for "fetch --prune".
>
> I just tried that, though, and got an interesting result. The push
> actually complains:
>
> $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two
> error: src refspec refs/heads/prune/two does not match any
> error: failed to push some refs to 'dst.git'
>
> For negative refspecs, would we want to loosen the "must-exist" check?
> Or really, is this getting into the "are we negative on the src or dst"
> thing you brought up earlier? Especially with --prune, what I really
> want to say is "do not touch the remote refs/heads/two".
>
Hmmm..
For regular push the negative refspec applies to the source. For prune
though we only provide a destination..
> We can get work around it by using a wildcard:
>
> $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two*
> To dst.git
> - [deleted] prune/one
>
> So it works as I'd expect already with your patch. But I do wonder if
> there are corner cases around the src/dst thing that might not behave
> sensibly.
>
Right, there's some interesting questions here still.
> -Peff
I'll be adding this as a test!
Thanks,
Jake
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-15 0:25 [RFC 1/3] refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item Jacob Keller
2020-08-15 0:25 ` [RFC 2/3] refspec: make sure stack refspec_item variables are zeroed Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 16:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-17 16:49 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-15 0:25 ` [RFC 3/3] refspec: add support for negative refspecs Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 18:02 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-17 23:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-18 0:04 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-18 17:41 ` Jeff King
2020-08-20 23:59 ` Jacob Keller [this message]
2020-08-21 2:33 ` Jeff King
2020-08-21 16:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-08-21 16:28 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 17:16 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 17:26 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 18:21 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 18:59 ` Jeff King
2020-08-17 16:18 ` [RFC 1/3] refspec: fix documentation referring to refspec_item Junio C Hamano
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Jacob Keller
2020-08-21 21:41 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+P7+xqfAqnoKBeOiO6f7tdyi_7M=wKpmnFoWBt6UHbOqbYCzQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jacob.keller@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).