From: Daniel Barkalow <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
In my branch at: git://iabervon.org/~barkalow/git builtin-fetch
I have a bunch of not-for-merging history leading up to a C version of
fetch which passes all of the tests except that:
* it might be fetching too much with --depth.
* bundle isn't implemented.
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
* branch.<name>.merge is treated like the source side of a refspec
(although it cannot be a wildcard), and it fetched refs are marked for
merging if they name the same ref, even if they are not character-wise
identical to the source side of the refspec used to fetch them.
I've got more work to do on it (such as actually using my parser for
parsing the refspecs and making the logic less convoluted), but I thought
I'd report my progress.
I'll give a sign-off to anyone who extracts patches that can be applied,
if anybody wants to.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
In my branch at: git://iabervon.org/~barkalow/git builtin-fetch
I have a bunch of not-for-merging history leading up to a C version of
fetch which passes all of the tests except that:
* it might be fetching too much with --depth.
That should be fixable. (If I get more time this week than I expect, I'll
do it myself.)
* bundle isn't implemented.
That's an easy one.
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
* branch.<name>.merge is treated like the source side of a refspec
(although it cannot be a wildcard), and it fetched refs are marked for
merging if they name the same ref, even if they are not character-wise
identical to the source side of the refspec used to fetch them.
I've got more work to do on it (such as actually using my parser for
parsing the refspecs and making the logic less convoluted), but I
thought I'd report my progress.
From: Alex Riesen <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
Seconded. Don't use the remotes/ since some months now.
But... isn't a git package with code of something like 1.4.4 is still
in some major distributions?
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
Seconded. Don't use the remotes/ since some months now.
But... isn't a git package with code of something like 1.4.4 is still
in some major distributions?
Yes, AFAICT it is Ubuntu "the most up-to-date distro there is". At least
many questions on the list and in IRC suggest that.
So, how about checking (at least for a year) in builtin-fetch, if
"branches/" or "remotes/" exist, and fail, with a nice message how to move
to config-based remotes?
Ciao,
Dscho
From: Alex Riesen <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
Seconded. Don't use the remotes/ since some months now.
But... isn't a git package with code of something like 1.4.4 is still
in some major distributions?
Yes, AFAICT it is Ubuntu "the most up-to-date distro there is". At least
many questions on the list and in IRC suggest that.
So, how about checking (at least for a year) in builtin-fetch, if
"branches/" or "remotes/" exist, and fail, with a nice message how to move
to config-based remotes?
...by suggesting to use a nice conversion script which we don't
have.
BTW, as far as I can see, git-remote reads old configuration just fine,
so it probably will a very simple script: read all and write all. Well,
the "all" part of it can be a bit complicated, but aside from that...
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
Seconded. Don't use the remotes/ since some months now.
But... isn't a git package with code of something like 1.4.4 is still
in some major distributions?
Yes, AFAICT it is Ubuntu "the most up-to-date distro there is". At least
many questions on the list and in IRC suggest that.
So, how about checking (at least for a year) in builtin-fetch, if
"branches/" or "remotes/" exist, and fail, with a nice message how to move
to config-based remotes?
...by suggesting to use a nice conversion script which we don't
have.
git.git/contrib/remotes2config.sh
IIRC it was explicitely asked to leave branches/* out of that script, but
the original version had it, and it should be easy to include it again.
BTW, as far as I can see, git-remote reads old configuration just fine,
so it probably will a very simple script: read all and write all. Well,
the "all" part of it can be a bit complicated, but aside from that...
From: Alex Riesen <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 6/19/07, Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
Seconded. Don't use the remotes/ since some months now.
But... isn't a git package with code of something like 1.4.4 is still
in some major distributions?
Yes, AFAICT it is Ubuntu "the most up-to-date distro there is". At least
many questions on the list and in IRC suggest that.
So, how about checking (at least for a year) in builtin-fetch, if
"branches/" or "remotes/" exist, and fail, with a nice message how to move
to config-based remotes?
...by suggesting to use a nice conversion script which we don't
have.
git.git/contrib/remotes2config.sh
IIRC it was explicitely asked to leave branches/* out of that script, but
the original version had it, and it should be easy to include it again.
From: Daniel Barkalow <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
quoted
In my branch at: git://iabervon.org/~barkalow/git builtin-fetch
I have a bunch of not-for-merging history leading up to a C version of
fetch which passes all of the tests except that:
* it might be fetching too much with --depth.
That should be fixable. (If I get more time this week than I expect, I'll
do it myself.)
I just haven't taken the time to look at what it's supposed to do exactly,
since I wasn't paying attention to the discussions there.
quoted
* bundle isn't implemented.
That's an easy one.
Yeah, just a section in transport.c about it, but the functions I need
aren't available directly and I got distracted until I was looking at my
list of what tests I'd disabled.
quoted
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
It's not actually too difficult to support them, except for some weird
combination cases that nobody would do anyway. I just made the remote.c
config file parser generate the corresponding configurations from them,
and the rest of the code doesn't have to care. The only oddity is that I
had to support having a remote always auto-follow tags, even without
tracking branches, because that's what branches/* did. But this is
probably a reasonable thing to support as an option anyway.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
From: Jakub Narebski <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
Johannes Schindelin wrote:
quoted
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
We should read branches/* and remotes/* for a long time; even if people
are using new version of git, their repositories are not necessarily
converted (and IIRC there is only script for remotes -> config, in contrib,
not in core git).
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17
Hi,
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
quoted
In my branch at: git://iabervon.org/~barkalow/git builtin-fetch
I have a bunch of not-for-merging history leading up to a C version
of fetch which passes all of the tests except that:
* it might be fetching too much with --depth.
That should be fixable. (If I get more time this week than I expect,
I'll do it myself.)
I just haven't taken the time to look at what it's supposed to do
exactly, since I wasn't paying attention to the discussions there.
Come to think of it, I am not sure that it does the right thing in
existing code either. There are still a bunch of emails regarding shallow
clone in my inbox, awaiting calmer weather.
quoted
quoted
* bundle isn't implemented.
That's an easy one.
Yeah, just a section in transport.c about it, but the functions I need
aren't available directly and I got distracted until I was looking at my
list of what tests I'd disabled.
What I meant is not that it is so easy that you should have done it. I
meant that this is so easy you should not bother with it, since I'll
gladly step in once builtin-fetch is otherwise feature complete.
quoted
quoted
* when a branch config file section refers to a branches/* remote, the
merge setting is used (if one is given), even though this isn't useful
either way.
Maybe this is the right time to cut off branches/* and remotes/*?
It's not actually too difficult to support them, except for some weird
combination cases that nobody would do anyway. I just made the remote.c
config file parser generate the corresponding configurations from them,
and the rest of the code doesn't have to care. The only oddity is that I
had to support having a remote always auto-follow tags, even without
tracking branches, because that's what branches/* did. But this is
probably a reasonable thing to support as an option anyway.
As Junio said, I think in the interest of clean code we should
deprecate that, and eventually get rid of it. We could do that even before
builtin-fetch reaches 'next'...
Ciao,
Dscho