We currently do not support fetching/cloning from a shallow repository
nor pushing into one. Make sure these are not attempted so that we
do not have to worry about corrupting repositories needlessly.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Earlier, git_connect() returned the same fd twice or two
separate fds, depending on the way the connection was made (when
we are talking to the other end over a single socket, we used
the same fd twice, and when our end is connected to a pipepair
we used two).
This forced callers who do close() and dup() to really care
which was which, and most of the existing callers got this
wrong, although without much visible ill effect. Many were
closing the same fd twice when we are talking over a single
socket, and one was leaking a fd.
This fixes it to uniformly use two separate fds, so if somebody
wants to close only reader side can just do close() on it
without worrying about it accidentally also closing the writer
side or vice versa.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This reverts commit 9b088c4e39.
Protecting 'mature' objects does not make it any safer. We should
admit that git-prune is inherently unsafe when run in parallel with
other operations without involving unwarranted locking overhead,
and with the latest git, even rebase and reset would not immediately
create crufts anyway.
Marco Candrian noticed that one cat-file example refers to a
blob object that is never used in the example sequence.
The bug is interesting in that the output from the botched
sample command is consistent with the incorrect blob object
name ;-).
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
We sometimes see a mode line show up in a diff if the file mode was
changed. But its not something we format specially.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
It appears git-gc will no longer prune automatically, so we don't
need to tell people not to do other stuff while running it.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
If we are making an initial commit our branch head did not exist when
we scanned for all heads during startup. Consequently we won't have
it in our branch menu. So force it to be put there after the ref was
created.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
I didn't really like the way a new git-gui launched in a new repository
as the window geometry wasn't quite the best layou. So this is a minor
tweak to try and get space distributed around the window better.
By decreasing the widths we're also able to shrink the gui smaller
without Tk clipping content at the edge of the window. A nice feature.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Up until now git-gui did not support the new wildcard syntax used to
fetch any remote branch into a tracking branch during 'git fetch'. Now
if we identify a tracking branch as ending with the string '/*' then
we use for-each-ref to print out the reference names which may have
been fetched by that pattern. We also now correctly filter any
tracking branches out of refs/heads, if they user has placed any there.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
When the user selects a starting revision from one of our offered popup
lists (local branches or tracking branches) or enters in an expression
in the expression input field we should automatically activate the
corresponding radio button for them.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If the user is tabbing through fields in the options dialog they are
likely to want to just enter a new value for the field, rather than
edit the value in-place. This is easier if we select the entire value
upon focusing into the field.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
When we are in a dialog such as the new branch dialog or our options
dialog we should permit the user to traverse around through the available
widgets with their Tab/Shift-Tab key combinations. So in any single
line text field where we don't want tab characters to actually be
inserted into the value rebind Tab and Shift-Tab to honor what the
tk_focusPrev and tk_focusNext scripts recommend.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Typically I'm creating all new branches with the same prefix, e.g. 'sp/'.
So its handy to be able to setup a repository (or global) level config
option for git gui which contains this initial prefix. Once set then
git-gui will load it into the new branch name field whenever a new
branch is being created.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
New branches must have a name. An empty one is not a valid ref, but the
generic message "We do not like '' as a branch name." is just too vague
or difficult to read. So detect the missing name early and tell the
user it must be entered.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
I refactored the common code related to tracking branch listing into
a new procedure all_tracking_branches. This saves a few lines and
should make the create and delete dialogs easier to maintain.
We now don't offer a radio button to create from a tracking branch
or merge-check a tracking branch if there are no tracking branches
known to git-gui. This prevents us from creating an empty option
list and letting the user try to shoot themselves in the foot by
asking us to work against an empty initial revision.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Some of my file paths in some of my repositories are very long, this
is rather typical in Java projects where the path name contains a deep
package structure and then the file name itself is rather long and
(hopefully) descriptive. Seeing these paths line wrap in the file lists
looks absolutely horrible. The entire rendering is almost unreadable.
Now we draw both horizontal and vertical scrollbars for both file lists,
and we never line wrap within the list text itself.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Because users who use git-gui are likely to also be using gitk, we
should at least match gitk's default colors and formatting within the
diff viewer.
Unfortunately this meant that I needed to change the background colors
of the hunks in a 'diff --cc' output, as the green used for 'added line'
was completely unreadable on the old color. We now use ivory1 to show
hunks which came from HEAD/parent^1, which are the portions that the
current branch has contributed, and are probably the user's own changes.
We use a very light blue for the portions which came from FETCH_HEAD,
as this makes the changes made by the other branch stand out more in the
diff.
I've also modified the hunk header lines to be blue, as that is how gitk
is showing them.
Apparently I forgot to raise the sel tag above everything else in the
diff viewer, which meant that selections in the diff viewer were not
visible if they were made on a 'diff --cc' hunk which had a background.
Its now the higest priority tag, ensuring the selection is always visible
and readable.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If a path is really unmerged, such as because it has been deleted and
also modifed, we cannot obtain a diff for it. Instead Git is sending
back '* Unmerged path <blah>' for file <blah>. We should display this
line as-is as our tag selecting switches don't recognize it.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If the user has not added any files yet they cannot commit. But
telling them this isn't an error, its really just an informational
note meant to push the user in the correct direction.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Just like how we split out the local and remote branches into two
different pick lists for branch creation, we should do the same
thing for branch deletion. This means that there are really 3
modes of operation here:
* delete only if merged into designated local branch;
* delete only if merged into designated tracking (remote) branch;
* delete no matter what
So we now use radio buttons to select between these operations.
We still default to checking for merge into the current branch,
as that is probably the most commonly used behavior. It also is
what core Git's command line tools do.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Using a stack of frames in the Starting Revision section of the new
branch dialog turned out to be a mess. The varying lengths of each
label caused the optionMenu widgets to be spread around the screen
at unaligned locations, making the interface very kludgy looking.
Now we layout the major sections of the branch dialog using grid
rather than pack, allowing these widgets to line up vertically in
a nice neat column. All extra space is given to column 1, which is
where we have located the text fields.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
The new branch name input box was showing up too close to the labelframe
border, it was basically right on top of it on Windows. This didn't
look right when compared to the Starting Revision's expression input
field, as that had a 5 pixel padding.
So I've put the new name input box into its own frame and padded that
frame by 5 pixels, making the UI more consistent.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Its impossible to commit an index which has unmerged stages.
Unfortunately a bug in git-gui allowed the user to try to do exactly that,
as we broke out of our file scanning loop as soon as we found a valid AMD
index state. That's wrong, as the files are coming back from our array
in pseudo-random order; an unmerged file may get returned only after all
merged files.
I also noticed the grammer around here in our dialog boxes still used
the term 'include', so this has been updated to reflect current usage.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Sometimes you want to just force the diff to redisplay itself without
rescanning every file in the filesystem (as that can be very costly
on large projects and slow operating systems). Now you can force a
diff-only refresh from the context menu. Previously you could also
do this by reclicking on the file name in the UI, but it may not be
obvious to all users, having a context menu option makes it more
clear.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
A prior commit tried to use the old index state for the old working
directory state during a UI refresh of a file. This caused files
which were being unstaged (and thus becoming unmodified) to drop
out of the working directory side of the display, at least until
the user performed a rescan to force the UI to redisplay everything.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If the user switches the currently shown file from one side of the UI
to the other then how its diff is presented would be different. And
leaving the old diff up is downright confusing.
Since the diff is probably not interesting to the user after the switch
we should just clear the diff viewer. This saves the user time, as they
won't need to wait for us to reload the diff.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
We were not correctly setting the old state of an index display to
_ if the index was previously unmerged. This caused us to try and
update a U->M when resolving a merge conflict but we were unable to
do so as the icon did not exist in the index viewer. Tk did not
like being asked to modify an icon which was undefined.
Now we always transform both the old and the new states for both
sides (index and working directory) prior to updating the UI.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Now that we are using 'git diff' to display unmerged working directory
files we are getting 'diff --cc' output rather than 'diff --combined'
output. Further the markers in the first two columns actually make
sense here, we shouldn't attempt to rewrite them to something else.
I've added 'diff --cc *' to the skip list in our diff viewer, as that
particular line is not very interesting to display.
I've completely refactored how we perform detection of the state of a
line during diff parsing; we now report an error message if we don't
understand the particular state of any given line. This way we know
if we aren't tagging something we maybe should have tagged in the UI.
I've also added special display of the standard conflict hunk markers
(<<<<<<<, =======, >>>>>>>). These are formatted without a patch op
as the patch op is always '+' or '++' (meaning the line has been added
relative to the committed state) and are displayed in orange bold text,
sort of like the @@ or @@@ marker line is at the start of each hunk.
In a 3 way merge diff hunks which came from our HEAD are shown with a
azure2 background, and hunks which came from the incoming MERGE_HEAD
are displayed with a 'light goldenrod yellow' background. This makes
the two different hunks clearly visible within the file. Hunks which
are ++ or -- (added or deleted relative to both parents) are shown
without any background at all.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If a file has a merge conflict we want it to show up in the 'Changed
But Not Updated' file list rather than the 'Changes To Be Committed'
file list. This way the user can mostly ignore the left side (the
HEAD<->index comparsion) while resolving a merge and instead focus
on the merge conflicts, which are just shown on the right hand side.
This requires detecting the U state in the index side and drawing
it as though it were _, then forcing the working directory side to
have a U state. We have to delay this until presentation time as
we don't want to change our internal state data to be different
from what Git is telling us (I tried, the patch for that was ugly
and didn't work).
When showing a working directory diff and its a merge conflict we
don't want to use diff-files as this would wind up showing any
automatically merged hunks obtained from MERGE_HEAD in the diff.
These are not usually very interesting as they were completed by
the system. Instead we just want to see the conflicts. Fortunately
the diff porcelain-ish frontend (aka 'git diff') detects the case of
an unmerged file and generates a --cc diff against HEAD and MERGE_HEAD.
So we now force any working directory diff with an index state of 'U'
to go through that difference path.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
The combined diff format can be very confusing, especially to new users
who may not even be familiar with a standard two way diff format. So
for files which are already staged for commit and which are modifed in
the working directory we should show two different diffs, depending on
which side the user clicked on.
If the user clicks on the "Changes To Be Committed" side then we should
show them the PARENT<->index difference. This is the set of changes they
will actually commit.
If the user clicks on the "Changed But Not Updated" side we should show
them the index<->working directory difference. This is the set of changes
which will not be committed, as they have not been staged into the index.
This is especially useful when merging, as the "Changed But Not Updated"
files are the ones that need merge conflict resolution, and the diff here
is the conflict hunks and/or any evil merge created by the user.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
We now need to keep track of which side the current diff is for,
HEAD<->index or index<->working directory. Consequently we need
an additional "current diff" variable to tell us which side the
diff is for. Since this is really only necessary in reshow_diff
I'm going to declare a new global, rather than try to shove both
the path and the side into current_diff.
To keep things clear later on, I'm renaming current_diff to
current_diff_path. There is no functionality change in this
commit.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Since references may be packed, it's no longer as helpful to
introduce references as paths relative to .git.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
If the user asked us to checkout the branch after creating it then
we should try to do so. This may fail, especially right now since
branch switching from within git-gui is not supported.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Its possible for the user to select a branch for the merge test
(while deleting branches) and also select that branch for deletion.
Doing so would have bypassed our merge check for that branch, as
a branch is always a strict subset of itself. So we will simply
skip over a branch and not delete it if that is the branch which
the user selected for the merge check.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If the user is deleting a branch which is fully merged into the
selected test branch we should not confirm the delete with them,
the fact that the branch is fully merged means we can recover the
branch and no work will be lost.
If a branch is not fully merged, we should warn the user about which
branch(es) that is and continue deleting those which are fully merged.
We should only delete a branch if the user disables the merge check,
and in that case we should confirm with the user that a delete should
occur as this may cause them to lose changes.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
The only reason the commit_prehook logic was broken out into its own
proc was so it could be invoked after the current set of files that
were already added to the commit could be refreshed if 'Allow Partially
Added Files' was set to false. Now that we no longer even offer that
option to the user there is no reason to keep this code broken out
into its own procedure.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Now that we take the approach of core Git where we allow the user to
stage their changes directly into the index all of the time there is
absolutely no reason to have the Allow Partially Added Files option,
nor is there a reason or desire to default that option to false.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
On Mac OS X wish does not draw borders around text fields, making the
field look like its not even there until the user focuses into it. I
don't know the Mac OS X UI standards very well, but that just seems
wrong. Other applications (e.g. Terminal.app) show their input boxes
with a sunken relief, so we should do the same.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Sometimes you want to create a branch from a remote tracking branch.
Needing to enter it in the revision expression field is very annoying,
so instead let the user select it from a list of known tracking branches.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Most of the time when you are deleting branches you want to delete
those which have been merged into your upstream source. Typically
that means it has been merged into the tip commit of some tracking
branch, and the current branch (or any other head) doesn't matter.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Users can now delete a local branch by selecting from a list of
available branches. The list automatically does not include
the current branch, as deleting the current branch could be quite
dangerous and should not be supported.
The user may also chose to have us verify the branches are fully
merged into another branch before deleting them. By default we
select the current branch, matching 'git branch -d' behavior,
but the user could also select any other local branch.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Creating branches is a common enough activity within a Git project
that we probably should give it a keyboard accelerator. N is not
currently used and seems reasonable to stand for "New Branch". To
bad our menu calls it create.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Users may now create new branches by activating the Branch->Create menu
item. This opens a dialog which lets the user enter the new branch
name and select the starting revision for the new branch.
For the starting revision we allow the user to either select from a
list of known heads (aka local branches) or to enter an arbitrary
SHA1 expression. For either creation technique we run the starting
revision through rev-parse to verify it is valid before trying to
create the ref with update-ref.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
It looks horrible to have the cancel and save buttons wedged up against
each other in our options dialog. Therefore toss a 5 pixel pad between
them.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Now that our lists represent more defined states it no longer makes any
sense to permit a user to make selections from both lists at once, as
the each available operation acts only on files whose status corresponds
to only one of the lists.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
During unstaging we can simplify the way we perform the output by
combining our four puts into a single call.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
