1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-10-31 22:37:54 +01:00
Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Junio C Hamano
a74352867e revision: propagate flag bits from tags to pointees
With the previous fix 895c5ba3 (revision: do not peel tags used in
range notation, 2013-09-19), handle_revision_arg() that processes
command line arguments for the "git log" family of commands no
longer directly places the object pointed by the tag in the pending
object array when it sees a tag object.  We used to place pointee
there after copying the flag bits like UNINTERESTING and
SYMMETRIC_LEFT.

This change meant that any flag that is relevant to later history
traversal must now be propagated to the pointed objects (most often
these are commits) while starting the traversal, which is partly
done by handle_commit() that is called from prepare_revision_walk().
We did propagate UNINTERESTING, but did not do so for others, most
notably SYMMETRIC_LEFT.  This caused "git log --left-right v1.0..."
(where "v1.0" is a tag) to start losing the "leftness" from the
commit the tag points at.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-01-15 15:53:51 -08:00
Junio C Hamano
2ac5e4470b revision: mark contents of an uninteresting tree uninteresting
"git rev-list --objects ^A^{tree} B^{tree}" ought to mean "I want a
list of objects inside B's tree, but please exclude the objects that
appear inside A's tree".

we see the top-level tree marked as uninteresting (i.e. ^A^{tree} in
the above example) and call mark_tree_uninteresting() on it; this
unfortunately prevents us from recursing into the tree and marking
the objects in the tree as uninteresting.

The reason why "git log ^A A" yields an empty set of commits,
i.e. we do not have a similar issue for commits, is because we call
mark_parents_uninteresting() after seeing an uninteresting commit.
The uninteresting-ness of the commit itself does not prevent its
parents from being marked as uninteresting.

Introduce mark_tree_contents_uninteresting() and structure the code
in handle_commit() in such a way that it makes it the responsibility
of the callchain leading to this function to mark commits, trees and
blobs as uninteresting, and also make it the responsibility of the
helpers called from this function to mark objects that are reachable
from them.

Note that this is a very old bug that probably dates back to the day
when "rev-list --objects" was introduced.  The line to clear
tree->object.parsed at the end of mark_tree_contents_uninteresting()
can be removed when this fix is merged to the codebase after
6e454b9a (clear parsed flag when we free tree buffers, 2013-06-05).

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-01-15 15:48:58 -08:00
Junio C Hamano
895c5ba3c1 revision: do not peel tags used in range notation
A range notation "A..B" means exactly the same thing as what "^A B"
means, i.e. the set of commits that are reachable from B but not
from A.  But the internal representation after the revision parser
parsed these two notations are subtly different.

 - "rev-list ^A B" leaves A and B in the revs->pending.objects[]
   array, with the former marked as UNINTERESTING and the revision
   traversal machinery propagates the mark to underlying commit
   objects A^0 and B^0.

 - "rev-list A..B" peels tags and leaves A^0 (marked as
   UNINTERESTING) and B^0 in revs->pending.objects[] array before
   the traversal machinery kicks in.

This difference usually does not matter, but starts to matter when
the --objects option is used.  For example, we see this:

    $ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4^1..v1.8.4 | grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4)
    $ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4 ^v1.8.4^1 | grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4)
    04f013dc38 v1.8.4

With the former invocation, the revision traversal machinery never
hears about the tag v1.8.4 (it only sees the result of peeling it,
i.e. the commit v1.8.4^0), and the tag itself does not appear in the
output.  The latter does send the tag object itself to the output.

Make the range notation keep the unpeeled objects and feed them to
the traversal machinery to fix this inconsistency.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-10-15 16:17:09 -07:00
Elijah Newren
a97a96fc96 Add testcases showing how pathspecs are handled with rev-list --objects
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2011-02-03 14:10:46 -08:00