From: Christopher Lindee <christopher.lindee@webpros.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Optionally support push options on up-to-date branches
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:08:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SA1PR14MB46916648249AFA5D723369188D292@SA1PR14MB4691.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa5n168nh.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Christopher Lindee <christopher.lindee@webpros.com> writes:
>
> > Some Git servers can take actions on a branch using push options; to do this,
> > the branch ref must be passed along with the push options. However, if the
> > branch is up-to-date, then Git submits push options without any refs, so the
> > server is not given a branch to act upon and the push options become no-ops.
>
> Yeah, the send-pack/receive-pack were written in the simpler days
> back when "pushing the same object again to the ref was an absolute
> no-op", and push options that breaks the expectation did not exist.
>
> It makes sense to allow a (seemingly no-op) push to go through with
> an option.
>
> And even without custom push option, recording this seemingly no-op
> push as a ref "update" does make sense--push certificate records
> what object the pusher wanted each target ref to have, and omitting
> a ref from the record only because the ref was already pointing at
> the desired object is losing information.
Hmm... does this mean that push certificate records should imply this new
option?
> So I doubly agree with the reasoning beind this change.
>
> > This changeset proposes to address this issue by adding an option to `push` and
> > `send-pack` that, when specified, will send refs where the old-oid and new-oid
>
> "where" -> "even if"
Excellent clarification!
> > are identical - instead of silently skipping these refs. The first commit
> > introduces the `--send-up-to-date` option to toggle this behavior, while the
> > second commit updates the commands to output an `(up-to-date)` notice for each
> > branch with an identical old-oid and new-oid.
> >
> > Notably, the `--force` option will not send a ref when the remote is up-to-date.
>
> And it makes sense *not* to update `--force` to do the no-op push,
> becaues you may not want to (accidentally) force push a ref that
> does not fast-forward. As I already said, tying this with use of
> the "-o" option is not sufficient. So I agree we may want a new
> option to trigger this behaviour.
>
> A radical counter-proposal for the design is to update the client
> side to do this unconditionally, without needing any new option.
> For an already up-to-date ref, its only contribution to the cost of
> "git push" is from its "Finally, tell the other end!" instruction,
> which is in the order of 100 bytes per ref, and it should not add to
> the pack generation cost at all [*].
About 100 bytes per ref can grow when using a ref glob; for example,
`git push <remote> refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*` would push up ~1200 refs
to the Git repository, or about 120 KiB across ~80 Ethernet frames.
That's not much compared to the amount of data fetched during a push,
but it seems like a lot of unnecessary data in most instances and it
would add a tiny bit of latency (more on that in a second).
> Side note: But we have to be careful---if the receiving end is
> totally up-to-date and there is absolutely no ref, I think the
> current code will not even call pack_objects(), and you'd
> probably want a similar optimization to avoid the cost to spawn
> pack_objects().
Good point. This got me thinking about other potential side-effects.
What would happen if two actors push to the repository at the same
time with a lot of no-op branch changes? For example,
Actors 1 & 2 (either actor could be first):
push< aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa refs/heads/main\0report-status ...
push< bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb refs/heads/branch
push< ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff .have
push< ...
push< 0000
Actor 1:
push> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555 refs/heads/main\0 report-status-v2 ...
push> bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb refs/heads/branch
push> 0000
Actor 2:
push> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa refs/heads/main\0 report-status-v2 ...
push> bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444 refs/heads/branch
push> 0000
If repository locking makes `push<` and `push>` a combined atomic operation,
then this could never happen. Otherwise, I suspect Actor 2 would receive an
error (or at least a warning) since refs/heads/main is now 555... instead of
aaa.... Moreover, if an error and `--atomic` is specified, then everything
fails to update.
And, as mentioned before, with a large number of refs there will be
additional latency, which increases the chance of collisions.
> I do not know if "send-up-to-date" is a great name for the option,
> though.
Agreed; names are difficult.
I considered --always-send-refs, but thought it a bit vague since it
implies refs are sometimes not sent, but requires you to look at the
documentation to understand under what conditions refs would not be
sent. I also feared there might be other conditions where refs are
not sent that I was unaware of.
I think something with "noop" makes sense; thing is, which do we use?
1) --force-nop
2) --force-noop
3) --force-no-op
I've seen all 3 ways of writing "no operation". Everyone has their
preference (e.g. I did 1; Junio suggested 3 and later used 2) and if
the one we choose doesn't match up to a user's, typos seem inevitable.
Though I suppose we already have this issue with color/colour.
I also want to consider the audience. To me, "no-op" feels low-level.
Meanwhile, "send-up-to-date" uses the same nomenclature as the UI
displays and feels more porcelain. Frankly, this options seems more
low-level to me, since users probably want to consider the possible
side-effects on server-side before using it. However, I could see
GitLab telling average users to use the option on their Push Options
(https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/push_options.html) docs.
I'm curious what others think.
> >
> > Chris Lindee (2):
> > Teach send-pack & push to --send-up-to-date refs
> > Add transport message for up-to-date references
> >
> > Documentation/git-push.txt | 8 +++++++-
> > Documentation/git-send-pack.txt | 7 +++++++
> > builtin/push.c | 1 +
> > builtin/send-pack.c | 4 ++++
> > send-pack.c | 2 +-
> > send-pack.h | 3 ++-
> > transport-helper.c | 7 ++++++-
> > transport.c | 3 +++
> > transport.h | 1 +
> > 9 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > base-commit: 3c2a3fdc388747b9eaf4a4a4f2035c1c9ddb26d0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-14 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-12 21:55 [PATCH 0/2] Optionally support push options on up-to-date branches Christopher Lindee
2024-03-13 22:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-14 22:55 ` brian m. carlson
2024-03-14 23:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-15 0:04 ` Chris Torek
2024-03-15 0:57 ` brian m. carlson
2024-03-15 0:19 ` Christopher Lindee
2024-03-15 15:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-15 0:39 ` brian m. carlson
2024-03-15 8:58 ` Christopher Lindee
2024-03-15 20:29 ` brian m. carlson
2024-03-15 0:11 ` Christopher Lindee
2024-03-14 23:08 ` Christopher Lindee [this message]
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=SA1PR14MB46916648249AFA5D723369188D292@SA1PR14MB4691.namprd14.prod.outlook.com \
--to=christopher.lindee@webpros.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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).