[PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

It was reported in https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037 that 
git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.testextension is broken. The problem is not even
the stash operation itself, it happens when the git add part of dropping the
local changes is spawned: we simply passed the parsed pathspec instead of
the unparsed one.

While verifying the fix, I also realized that the escape hatch was seriously
broken by my "backport of the -q option": It introduced four bogus eval 
statements, which really need to be dropped.

Johannes Schindelin (2):
  legacy stash: fix "rudimentary backport of -q"
  built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again

 builtin/stash.c                    | 5 +++--
 git-legacy-stash.sh                | 8 ++++----
 t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 6 ++++++
 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


base-commit: 7906af0cb84c8e65656347909abd4e22b04d1c1e
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-159%2Fdscho%2Fstash-with-globs-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-159/dscho/stash-with-globs-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/159
-- 
gitgitgadget

[PATCH 1/2] legacy stash: fix "rudimentary backport of -q"

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

When this developer backported support for `--quiet` to the scripted
version of `git stash` in 80590055ea (stash: optionally use the scripted
version again, 2018-12-20), it looked like a sane choice to use `eval`
to execute the command line passed in via the parameter list of
`maybe_quiet`.

However, that is not what we should have done, as that command-line was
already in the correct shape.

This can be seen very clearly when passing arguments with special
characters, like

	git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.txt'

Since this is exactly what we want to test in the next commit (where we
fix this very incantation with the built-in stash), let's fix the legacy
scripted version of `git stash` first.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 git-legacy-stash.sh | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/git-legacy-stash.sh b/git-legacy-stash.sh
index 8a8c4a9270..f60e9b3e87 100755
--- a/git-legacy-stash.sh
+++ b/git-legacy-stash.sh
@@ -86,17 +86,17 @@ maybe_quiet () {
 		shift
 		if test -n "$GIT_QUIET"
 		then
-			eval "$@" 2>/dev/null
+			"$@" 2>/dev/null
 		else
-			eval "$@"
+			"$@"
 		fi
 		;;
 	*)
 		if test -n "$GIT_QUIET"
 		then
-			eval "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1
+			"$@" >/dev/null 2>&1
 		else
-			eval "$@"
+			"$@"
 		fi
 		;;
 	esac
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 1/2] legacy stash: fix "rudimentary backport of -q"

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> This can be seen very clearly when passing arguments with special
> characters, like
>
> 	git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.txt'
>
> Since this is exactly what we want to test in the next commit (where we
> fix this very incantation with the built-in stash), let's fix the legacy
> scripted version of `git stash` first.

Thanks.  I agree that these eval are evaluating one iteration too
much.

>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  git-legacy-stash.sh | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-legacy-stash.sh b/git-legacy-stash.sh
> index 8a8c4a9270..f60e9b3e87 100755
> --- a/git-legacy-stash.sh
> +++ b/git-legacy-stash.sh
> @@ -86,17 +86,17 @@ maybe_quiet () {
>  		shift
>  		if test -n "$GIT_QUIET"
>  		then
> -			eval "$@" 2>/dev/null
> +			"$@" 2>/dev/null
>  		else
> -			eval "$@"
> +			"$@"
>  		fi
>  		;;
>  	*)
>  		if test -n "$GIT_QUIET"
>  		then
> -			eval "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1
> +			"$@" >/dev/null 2>&1
>  		else
> -			eval "$@"
> +			"$@"
>  		fi
>  		;;
>  	esac

[PATCH 2/2] built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again

[Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget]

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

When passing a list of pathspecs to, say, `git add`, we need to be
careful to use the original form, not the parsed form of the pathspecs.

This makes a difference e.g. when calling

	git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.txt'

where the original form includes the `:(glob)` prefix while the parsed
form does not.

However, in the built-in `git stash`, we passed the parsed (i.e.
incorrect) form, and `git add` would fail with the error message:

	fatal: pathspec '**/*.txt' did not match any files

at the stage where `git stash` drops the changes from the worktree, even
if `refs/stash` has been actually updated successfully.

This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
 builtin/stash.c                    | 5 +++--
 t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
index 1bfa24030c..2f29d037c8 100644
--- a/builtin/stash.c
+++ b/builtin/stash.c
@@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static void add_pathspecs(struct argv_array *args,
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ps.nr; i++)
-		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].match);
+		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].original);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1466,7 +1466,8 @@ static int push_stash(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 				     git_stash_push_usage,
 				     0);
 
-	parse_pathspec(&ps, 0, PATHSPEC_PREFER_FULL, prefix, argv);
+	parse_pathspec(&ps, 0, PATHSPEC_PREFER_FULL | PATHSPEC_PREFIX_ORIGIN,
+		       prefix, argv);
 	return do_push_stash(ps, stash_msg, quiet, keep_index, patch_mode,
 			     include_untracked);
 }
diff --git a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
index cc1c8a7bb2..29ca76f2fb 100755
--- a/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
+++ b/t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh
@@ -283,4 +283,10 @@ test_expect_success 'stash -u -- <non-existant> shows no changes when there are
 	test_i18ncmp expect actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'stash -u with globs' '
+	>untracked.txt &&
+	git stash -u -- ":(glob)**/*.txt" &&
+	test_path_is_missing untracked.txt
+'
+
 test_done
-- 
gitgitgadget

Re: [PATCH 2/2] built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
>
> When passing a list of pathspecs to, say, `git add`, we need to be
> careful to use the original form, not the parsed form of the pathspecs.
>
> This makes a difference e.g. when calling
>
> 	git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.txt'
>
> where the original form includes the `:(glob)` prefix while the parsed
> form does not.
>
> However, in the built-in `git stash`, we passed the parsed (i.e.
> incorrect) form, and `git add` would fail with the error message:
>
> 	fatal: pathspec '**/*.txt' did not match any files
>
> at the stage where `git stash` drops the changes from the worktree, even
> if `refs/stash` has been actually updated successfully.
>
> This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>  builtin/stash.c                    | 5 +++--
>  t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
> index 1bfa24030c..2f29d037c8 100644
> --- a/builtin/stash.c
> +++ b/builtin/stash.c
> @@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static void add_pathspecs(struct argv_array *args,
>  	int i;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < ps.nr; i++)
> -		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].match);
> +		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].original);
>  }

Yup.  I think Thomas and Peff were also looking at the vicinity of
this code wrt the pass-by-value-ness of ps parameter.  Their fix
need to also come on top of this (or combined together).

Re: [PATCH 2/2] built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
> 
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> >
> > When passing a list of pathspecs to, say, `git add`, we need to be
> > careful to use the original form, not the parsed form of the pathspecs.
> >
> > This makes a difference e.g. when calling
> >
> > 	git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.txt'
> >
> > where the original form includes the `:(glob)` prefix while the parsed
> > form does not.
> >
> > However, in the built-in `git stash`, we passed the parsed (i.e.
> > incorrect) form, and `git add` would fail with the error message:
> >
> > 	fatal: pathspec '**/*.txt' did not match any files
> >
> > at the stage where `git stash` drops the changes from the worktree, even
> > if `refs/stash` has been actually updated successfully.
> >
> > This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >  builtin/stash.c                    | 5 +++--
> >  t/t3905-stash-include-untracked.sh | 6 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
> > index 1bfa24030c..2f29d037c8 100644
> > --- a/builtin/stash.c
> > +++ b/builtin/stash.c
> > @@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static void add_pathspecs(struct argv_array *args,
> >  	int i;
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < ps.nr; i++)
> > -		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].match);
> > +		argv_array_push(args, ps.items[i].original);
> >  }
> 
> Yup.  I think Thomas and Peff were also looking at the vicinity of
> this code wrt the pass-by-value-ness of ps parameter.  Their fix
> need to also come on top of this (or combined together).

I agree. How can I help?

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 2/2] built-in stash: handle :(glob) pathspecs again

[Thomas Gummerer]

On 03/11, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Junio,
> 
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Yup.  I think Thomas and Peff were also looking at the vicinity of
> > this code wrt the pass-by-value-ness of ps parameter.  Their fix
> > need to also come on top of this (or combined together).
> 
> I agree. How can I help?

I just sent an updated version of my patch, based on top of this at [*1*].
Would be great if you could review that :)

*1*: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190311221624.GC16414@hank.intra.tgummerer.com/

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Junio C Hamano]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> It was reported in https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037 that 
> git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.testextension is broken. The problem is not even
> the stash operation itself, it happens when the git add part of dropping the
> local changes is spawned: we simply passed the parsed pathspec instead of
> the unparsed one.
>
> While verifying the fix, I also realized that the escape hatch was seriously
> broken by my "backport of the -q option": It introduced four bogus eval 
> statements, which really need to be dropped.

Thanks.

We seem to be piling many "oops" on top, even after the topic hits
'next'.  But fixes are better late than never ;-).

Will queue.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
> 
> > It was reported in https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2037 that 
> > git stash -- ':(glob)**/*.testextension is broken. The problem is not even
> > the stash operation itself, it happens when the git add part of dropping the
> > local changes is spawned: we simply passed the parsed pathspec instead of
> > the unparsed one.
> >
> > While verifying the fix, I also realized that the escape hatch was seriously
> > broken by my "backport of the -q option": It introduced four bogus eval 
> > statements, which really need to be dropped.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> We seem to be piling many "oops" on top, even after the topic hits
> 'next'.  But fixes are better late than never ;-).

Yes, we do. At least now I do not have the impression that I have to
impose on Paul to integrate whatever diffs I came up with, I can now just
submit small patch series that are easily reviewed.

If you care deeply about the commit history, I hereby offer to you to
clean up the built-in stash patches when you say you're ready to advance
them to `master`; I will then squash the fixes into the proper places to
make it a nicer read, with the promise that the tree will be the same in
the end as with the oops-upon-oops patch history that we're piling up in
`next`. I would do that for you.

> Will queue.

Thanks,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> If you care deeply about the commit history, I hereby offer to you to
> clean up the built-in stash patches when you say you're ready to advance
> them to `master`.

What's the goal of such a rebase?  To rebuild the topic as a
sensible sequence of commits that logically builds on top of
previous steps to ease later bisection and understanding?

Thanks for an offer out of good intentions,, but let's move on and
polish the tree shape at the tip of this topic.  The history behind
it may be messier than other segments of our history, and future
developers may have harder time learning the intention of the topic
when making changes on top, but this one was supposed to create a
bug-to-bug reimplementation of the scripted version.  What matters
more would be our future changes on top of this code, which improves
what we used to have as scripted Porcelain.  They will genuinely be
novel efforts, need to be built in logical order and explainable
steps to help future developers.  Compared to that, so the history
of our stumbling along the way to reach today's tip of the topic
has much lower value.

Besides I think it is way too late for the current topic.  We
established before the topic hit 'next' that reviewers' eyes all
lost freshness and patience to review another round of this series
adequately.

We at least know that the ordering and organization of the iteration
we see in 'next' is crappy, because some reviewers did look at them.
The rewrite will see no reviews, if any, far fewer and shallower
reviews than the iteration we have; nobody would be able to say with
confidence that the rewritten series achieves its goal of leaving a
sensible history.  Doing so just before it hits 'master' makes it a
sure thing.

Let's just we all admit that we did a poor job when we decided to
push this topic to 'next' before it was ready, and learn the lesson
to avoid haste making waste for the future topics.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > If you care deeply about the commit history, I hereby offer to you to
> > clean up the built-in stash patches when you say you're ready to advance
> > them to `master`.
> 
> What's the goal of such a rebase?

To appease you enough that you stop complaining about the current, or
previous, state of `ps/stash-in-c`.

I am genuinely interested in making this all more pleasant for you, even
if my efforts to that end show no fruit.

> To rebuild the topic as a sensible sequence of commits that logically
> builds on top of previous steps to ease later bisection and
> understanding?
> 
> Thanks for an offer out of good intentions,, but let's move on and
> polish the tree shape at the tip of this topic.

I would be prepared to do that, but I am constantly reminded of the
unfortunate way we handled `ps/stash-in-c`, where you thought it was way
too early to move to `next`, and I am convinced that we simply were way
too late to start cooking in `next`.

So I keep offering to do work so that you would be happier, but none of my
suggestions seem to work.

> The history behind it may be messier than other segments of our history,
> and future developers may have harder time learning the intention of the
> topic when making changes on top, but this one was supposed to create a
> bug-to-bug reimplementation of the scripted version.

Right. But we moved right past that, and continued enhancing `git stash`,
(like the `--quiet` thing) and were now stuck with the unfortunate
situation that we had to do it in both built-in and scripted version.

> What matters more would be our future changes on top of this code, which
> improves what we used to have as scripted Porcelain.  They will
> genuinely be novel efforts, need to be built in logical order and
> explainable steps to help future developers.  Compared to that, so the
> history of our stumbling along the way to reach today's tip of the topic
> has much lower value.
> 
> Besides I think it is way too late for the current topic.  We
> established before the topic hit 'next' that reviewers' eyes all
> lost freshness and patience to review another round of this series
> adequately.
> 
> We at least know that the ordering and organization of the iteration
> we see in 'next' is crappy, because some reviewers did look at them.
> The rewrite will see no reviews, if any, far fewer and shallower
> reviews than the iteration we have; nobody would be able to say with
> confidence that the rewritten series achieves its goal of leaving a
> sensible history.  Doing so just before it hits 'master' makes it a
> sure thing.

Fine. But in that case, I would appreciate not being reminded of the
messiness. Not unless you let me do something about it. Don't put me
between a rock and a hard place, please.

> Let's just we all admit that we did a poor job when we decided to
> push this topic to 'next' before it was ready, and learn the lesson
> to avoid haste making waste for the future topics.

Quite honestly, I am at a loss what you are suggesting here. The original
contributor (Paul) got unexpectedly busy with university, so he was not
able to take care of any updates.

I would have made those updates (I promised, after all), but at some stage
it felt more logical to explain in add-on topics what breakages were
introduced by the built-in rewrite and fix them: squashing the fixes in
would have made it less obvious why certain changes had to be done that
way (after all, I missed in the original dozens of reviews, pre-submission
and post-submission, e.g. the ORIG_HEAD problems).

But you did not complain about me adding on top back then, so I do not
understand why you complain about it now...

I am more than willing to move on, but if we keep repeating how messy the
current state is and do not even come up with a way how we could handle
this better in the future, then I do not really feel that we *are* moving
on after all.

Ciao,
Dscho

> Thanks.
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> To appease you enough that you stop complaining about the current, or
> previous, state of `ps/stash-in-c`.
> ...

First of all, you do not have to appease me.  What happened in the
past has happened already, and whether I complain or not, the fact
that the history we came up with before pushing the topic to 'next'
was suboptimal.  Nothing short of kicking it out of 'next' and
redoing as if it were a fresh topic would fix that, but we all
agreed that it is not the best way to spend our developer and
reviewer resources.

> Fine. But in that case, I would appreciate not being reminded of the
> messiness. Not unless you let me do something about it. Don't put me
> between a rock and a hard place, please.

You had been given plenty of chance to do something about it after
you added "oh, it was wrong not to have a legacy fallback, and here
is a patch on the top".  This is not the time to revisit the issue.

Gagging me won't change the fact that the history we ended up is
messy.  Without getting reminded of our past mistake(s) ourselves,
what else encourages us to do better the next time?

The lesson I personally learned is that yielding to the wish to
hastily push things that are not ready to 'next' will leave us mess.
I hope the lesson submitters and mentors have learned is not that by
bombarding reviewers with too many iterations that do not address an
issue, a topic can be pushed through with the issue unresolved with
reviewer fatigue.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] stash: handle pathspec magic again

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> Fine. But in that case, I would appreciate not being reminded of the
>> messiness. Not unless you let me do something about it. Don't put me
>> between a rock and a hard place, please.

Perhaps your attitude is coming from a fundamental misunderstanding
of the process.  Don't be unnecessarily defensive, as nobody is
being hostile or attacking you.

It's not like this is a competition to see if your taste as a
developer is better or worse than others (including me).  It is a
cooperative process and everybody involved is "at fault" if we made
a mistake.  Ending up with a suboptimal history in 'next' is not
creditable solely to you.  I am as much to blame, so are others who
advocated to merge it to 'next' even it were not ready.  Or those
who did not speak up before it was too late, for that matter.

> Gagging me won't change the fact that the history we ended up is
> messy.  Without getting reminded of our past mistake(s) ourselves,
> what else encourages us to do better the next time?