The recent "short-cut clone connectivity check" topic broke a
shallow repository when a fetch operation tries to auto-follow tags.
* nd/fetch-pack-shallow-fix:
fetch-pack: do not remove .git/shallow file when --depth is not specified
An if clause must not be empty; add a "colon" command.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are a few level 4 and 2 perlcritic issues in the current code. We
make level 5 fatal, and keep level 2 as warnings.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The text mentions core.pager and GIT_PAGER without giving the
overall picture of precedences. Borrow a better description from
the git-var(1) documentation.
The use of the mechanism to allow system-wide, global and
per-repository configuration files is not limited to this particular
variable. Remove it to clarify the paragraph.
Rewrite the part that explains how the environment variable LESS is
set to Git's default value, and how to selectively customize it.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
They don't need to be specified if they are not going to be set.
Suggested-by: Dusty Phillips <dusty@linux.ca>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It appears 'let' is not present in all shells.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It wasn't being checked properly before; those refs never existed.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Different repositories have different branches, some are are even
branches themselves.
Reported-by: Peter Niederlag <netservice@niekom.de>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Reported-by: Joakim Verona <joakim@verona.se>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 4337b58 (do not write null sha1s to on-disk index,
2012-07-28) added a safety check preventing git from writing
null sha1s into the index. The intent was to catch errors in
other parts of the code that might let such an entry slip
into the index (or worse, a tree).
Some existing repositories may have invalid trees that
contain null sha1s already, though. Until 4337b58, a common
way to clean this up would be to use git-filter-branch's
index-filter to repair such broken entries. That now fails
when filter-branch tries to write out the index.
Introduce a GIT_ALLOW_NULL_SHA1 environment variable to
relax this check and make it easier to recover from such a
history.
It is tempting to not involve filter-branch in this commit
at all, and instead require the user to manually invoke
GIT_ALLOW_NULL_SHA1=1 git filter-branch ...
to perform an index-filter on a history with trees with null
sha1s. That would be slightly safer, but requires some
specialized knowledge from the user. So let's set the
GIT_ALLOW_NULL_SHA1 variable automatically when checking out
the to-be-filtered trees. Advice on using filter-branch to
remove such entries already exists on places like
stackoverflow, and this patch makes it Just Work again on
recent versions of git.
Further commands that touch the index will still notice and
fail, unless they actually remove the broken entries. A
filter-branch whose filters do not touch the index at all
will not error out (since we complain of the null sha1 only
on writing, not when making a tree out of the index), but
this is acceptable, as we still print a loud warning, so the
problem is unlikely to go unnoticed.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sparse issues an "'prepare_transport' was not declared. Should it
be static?" warning. In order to suppress the warning, since this
symbol only requires file scope, we simply add the static modifier
to it's declaration.
Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The documentation for "diff-files" mode of "git diff" primarily
talks about how changes in the files in the working tree are shown
relative to the contents previously added to that index, and tucks
explanation on how "--no-index" mode, which works in a quite
different way, may be implicitly used instead. Instead, add a
separate paragraph to explain what "--no-index" mode does, and also
mention when "--no-index" can be omitted from the command line
(essentially, when it is obvious from the context).
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add "-i" (interactive clean option) to clarify the documentation for
"clean.requireForce" config variable.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The read_mailmap_buf function reads each line of the mailmap
using strchrnul, like:
const char *end = strchrnul(buf, '\n');
unsigned long linelen = end - buf + 1;
But that's off-by-one when we actually hit the NUL byte; our
line does not have a terminator, and so is only "end - buf"
bytes long. As a result, when we subtract the linelen from
the total len, we end up with (unsigned long)-1 bytes left
in the buffer, and we start reading random junk from memory.
We could fix it with:
unsigned long linelen = end - buf + !!*end;
but let's take a step back for a moment. It's questionable
in the first place for a function that takes a buffer and
length to be using strchrnul. But it works because we only
have one caller (and are only likely to ever have this one),
which is handing us data from read_sha1_file. Which means
that it's always NUL-terminated.
Instead of tightening the assumptions to make the
buffer/length pair work for a caller that doesn't actually
exist, let's let loosen the assumptions to what the real
caller has: a modifiable, NUL-terminated string.
This makes the code simpler and shorter (because we don't
have to correlate strchrnul with the length calculation),
correct (because the code with the off-by-one just goes
away), and more efficient (we can drop the extra allocation
we needed to create NUL-terminated strings for each line,
and just terminate in place).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is a testcase that checks for a problem where, during a specific
shallow fetch where the client does not have any commits that are a
successor of the new shallow root (i.e., the fetch creates a new
detached piece of history), the server would simply send over _all_
objects, instead of taking into account the objects already present in
the client.
The actual problem was fixed by a recent patch series by Nguyễn Thái
Ngọc Duy already.
Signed-off-by: Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs@stdin.nl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The purpose of edge commits is to let pack-objects know what objects
it can use as base, but does not need to include in the thin pack
because the other side is supposed to already have them. So far we
mark uninteresting parents of interesting commits as edges. But even
an unrelated uninteresting commit (that the other side has) may
become a good base for pack-objects and help produce more efficient
packs.
This is especially true for shallow clone, when the client issues a
fetch with a depth smaller or equal to the number of commits the
server is ahead of the client. For example, in this commit history
the client has up to "A" and the server has up to "B":
-------A---B
have--^ ^
/
want--+
If depth 1 is requested, the commit list to send to the client
includes only B. The way m_e_u is working, it checks if parent
commits of B are uninteresting, if so mark them as edges. Due to
shallow effect, commit B is grafted to have no parents and the
revision walker never sees A as the parent of B. In fact it marks no
edges at all in this simple case and sends everything B has to the
client even if it could have excluded what A and also the client
already have.
In a slightly different case where A is not a direct parent of B
(iow there are commits in between A and B), marking A as an edge can
still save some because B may still have stuff from the far ancestor
A.
There is another case from the earlier patch, when we deepen a ref
from C->E to A->E:
---A---B C---D---E
want--^ ^ ^
shallow-+ /
have-------+
In this case we need to send A and B to the client, and C (i.e. the
current shallow point that the client informs the server) is a very
good base because it's closet to A and B. Normal m_e_u won't recognize
C as an edge because it only looks back to parents (i.e. A<-B) not the
opposite way B->C even if C is already marked as uninteresting commit
by the previous patch.
This patch includes all uninteresting commits from command line as
edges and lets pack-objects decide what's best to do. The upside is we
have better chance of producing better packs in certain cases. The
downside is we may need to process some extra objects on the server
side.
For the shallow case on git.git, when the client is 5 commits behind
and does "fetch --depth=3", the result pack is 99.26 KiB instead of
4.92 MiB.
Reported-and-analyzed-by: Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs@stdin.nl>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
mark_edges_uninteresting() is always called with this form
mark_edges_uninteresting(revs->commits, revs, ...);
Remove the first argument and let mark_edges_uninteresting figure that
out by itself. It helps answer the question "are this commit list and
revs related in any way?" when looking at mark_edges_uninteresting
implementation.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
upload-pack has a special revision walking code for shallow
recipients. It works almost like the similar code in pack-objects
except:
1. in upload-pack, graft points could be added for deepening;
2. also when the repository is deepened, the shallow point will be
moved further away from the tip, but the old shallow point will be
marked as edge to produce more efficient packs. See 6523078 (make
shallow repository deepening more network efficient - 2009-09-03).
Pass the file to pack-objects via --shallow-file. This will override
$GIT_DIR/shallow and give pack-objects the exact repository shape
that upload-pack has.
mark edge commits by revision command arguments. Even if old shallow
points are passed as "--not" revisions as in this patch, they will not
be picked up by mark_edges_uninteresting() because this function looks
up to parents for edges, while in this case the edge is the children,
in the opposite direction. This will be fixed in an later patch when
all given uninteresting commits are marked as edges.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This function is like setup_alternate_shallow() except that it does
not lock $GIT_DIR/shallow. It is supposed to be used when a program
generates temporary shallow for use by another program, then throw
the shallow file away.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
for_each_commit_graft() goes through all graft points, and shallow
boundaries are just one special kind of grafting.
If $GIT_DIR/shallow and $GIT_DIR/info/grafts are both present,
write_shallow_commits() may catch both sets, accidentally turning
some graft points to shallow boundaries. Don't do that.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git prune" is safe in case of concurrent accesses to a repository
but using it in such a case is not recommended.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sorry Jon, but this might not be of any help to new Git users ;)
Acked-by: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Remove unnecessary quoting.
Simplify description of three-way merge.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add some missing punctuation.
Simplify description of "git branch -d/-D".
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Combine the two cases for "git add" into one.
Add verb "use" to "git rm" case.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git pull ." works, but "git merge" is the recommended
way for new users to do things. (The old description
also should have read "The former is actually *not* very
commonly used".)
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When core.precomposeunicode was introduced in 76759c7d,
it was set to false on a unicode decomposing file system like HFS+
to be compatible with older versions of Git.
The Mac OS users need to find out that this configuration exist
and change it manually from false to true.
A smoother workflow can be achieved,
so set core.precomposeunicode to true on a decomposing file system.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
According to C99, section 7.1.4:
Any function declared in a header may be additionally
implemented as a function-like macro defined in the
header.
Therefore calling our struct member function pointer "fgetc"
may run afoul of unwanted macro expansion when we call:
char c = cf->fgetc(cf);
This turned out to be a problem on uclibc, which defines
fgetc as a macro and causes compilation failure.
The standard suggests fixing this in a few ways:
1. Using extra parentheses to inhibit the function-like
macro expansion. E.g., "(cf->fgetc)(cf)". This is
undesirable as it's ugly, and each call site needs to
remember to use it (and on systems without the macro,
forgetting will compile just fine).
2. Using #undef (because a conforming implementation must
also be providing fgetc as a function). This is
undesirable because presumably the implementation was
using the macro for a performance benefit, and we are
dropping that optimization.
Instead, we can simply use non-colliding names.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The current documentation mentions the private ref namespace, but does
not really explain why it can be useful.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In order to see what the current branch is tracking, one way is using
"git branch -v -v", but branches other than the current are also
reported. Another way is using "git status", such as:
$ git status
# On branch master
# Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 1 commit.
...
But this will not work if there is no change between the current
branch and its upstream. Always report upstream tracking info
even if there is no difference, so that "git status" is consistent
for checking tracking info for current branch. E.g.
$ git status
# On branch feature1
# Your branch is up-to-date with 'github/feature1'.
...
$ git status -bs
## feature1...github/feature1
...
$ git checkout feature1
Already on 'feature1'
Your branch is up-to-date with 'github/feature1'.
...
Also add some test cases in t6040.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Command "git branch -vv" will report tracking branches, but invalid
tracking branches are also reported. This is because the function
stat_tracking_info() can not distinguish invalid tracking branch
from other cases which it would not like to report, such as
there is no upstream settings at all, or nothing is changed between
one branch and its upstream.
Junio suggested missing upstream should be reported [1] like:
$ git branch -v -v
master e67ac84 initial
* topic 3fc0f2a [topicbase: gone] topic
$ git status
# On branch topic
# Your branch is based on 'topicbase', but the upstream is gone.
# (use "git branch --unset-upstream" to fixup)
...
$ git status -b -s
## topic...topicbase [gone]
...
In order to do like that, we need to distinguish these three cases
(i.e. no tracking, with configured but no longer valid tracking, and
with tracking) in function stat_tracking_info(). So the refactored
function stat_tracking_info() has three return values: -1 (with "gone"
base), 0 (no base), and 1 (with base).
If the caller does not like to report tracking info when nothing
changed between the branch and its upstream, simply checks if
num_theirs and num_ours are both 0.
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/231830/focus=232288
Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 'todo' sheet for interactive rebase shows abbreviated SHA-1's and
then performs its operations upon those shortened values. This can lead
to an abort if the SHA-1 of a reworded or edited commit is no longer
unique within the abbreviated SHA-1 space and a subsequent SHA-1 in the
todo list has the same abbreviated value.
For example:
edit f00dfad first
pick badbeef second
If, after editing, the new SHA-1 of "first" also has prefix badbeef,
then the subsequent 'pick badbeef second' will fail since badbeef is no
longer a unique SHA-1 abbreviation:
error: short SHA1 badbeef is ambiguous.
fatal: Needed a single revision
Invalid commit name: badbeef
Fix this problem by expanding the SHA-1's in the todo list before
performing the operations.
[es: also collapse & expand SHA-1's for --edit-todo; respect
core.commentchar in transform_todo_ids(); compose commit message]
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 'todo' sheet for interactive rebase shows abbreviated SHA-1's and
then performs its operations upon those shortened values. This can lead
to an abort if the SHA-1 of a reworded or edited commit is no longer
unique within the abbreviated SHA-1 space and a subsequent SHA-1 in the
todo list has the same abbreviated value.
For example:
edit f00dfad first
pick badbeef second
If, after editing, the new SHA-1 of "first" also has prefix badbeef,
then the subsequent 'pick badbeef second' will fail since badbeef is no
longer a unique SHA-1 abbreviation:
error: short SHA1 badbeef is ambiguous.
fatal: Needed a single revision
Invalid commit name: badbeef
Demonstrate this problem with a couple of specially crafted commits
which initially have distinct abbreviated SHA-1's, but for which the
abbreviated SHA-1's collide after a simple rewording of the first
commit's message.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As its very first action, t3404 installs (via set_fake_editor) a
specialized $EDITOR which simplifies automated 'rebase -i' testing. Many
tests rely upon this setting, thus tests which need a different editor
must take extra care upon completion to restore $EDITOR in order to
avoid breaking following tests. This places extra burden upon such tests
and requires that they undesirably have extra knowledge about
surrounding tests. Ease this burden by having each test install the
$EDITOR it requires, rather than relying upon a global setting.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
fetch_pack() can remove .git/shallow file when a shallow repository
becomes a full one again. This behavior is triggered incorrectly when
tags are also fetched because fetch_pack() will be called twice. At
the first fetch_pack() call:
- shallow_lock is set up
- alternate_shallow_file points to shallow_lock.filename, which is
"shallow.lock"
- commit_lock_file is called, which sets shallow_lock.filename to "".
alternate_shallow_file also becomes "" because it points to the
same memory.
At the second call, setup_alternate_shallow() is not called and
alternate_shallow_file remains "". It's mistaken as unshallow case and
.git/shallow is removed. The end result is a broken repository.
Fix this by always initializing alternate_shallow_file when
fetch_pack() is called. As an extra measure, check if args->depth > 0
before commit/rollback shallow file.
Reported-by: Kacper Kornet <kornet@camk.edu.pl>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In most cases, "feature <foo>" does not just require that the feature
exists, but also changes the behavior by enabling it.
Cases where the feature is only requested like cat-blob, notes or ls are
clearly documented below.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Avoid command substitution and pipes to ensure that the exit status
from each git command is tested (and in particular that any segfaults
are caught).
Maintain the test setup (no commits, one file named "a", another named
"b") even after the last test, to make it easier to rearrange tests or
add new tests after the last in the future.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The test 'reset -p' uses git-reset -p, so it depends on the perl code.
Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It is too easy to forget to add the PERL prerequisite for new
"add -i" tests, especially given that many people do not test with
NO_PERL so the missing prereq is not always noticed quickly.
The test had used the skip_all mechanism since 1b19ccd2 (2009-04-03)
but switched to explicit PERL prereqs in f0459319 (2010-10-13) in hope
of helping people see how many tests were skipped, perhaps to motivate
them to tweak their platform or tests to improve test coverage. That
didn't pan out much in practice, so let's move back to the simpler
skip_all method.
Reported-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the test 'using invalid commit with -C' git-commit would have failed
even if the -C option had been given the correct commit, as there was
nothing to commit. Pass --allow-empty to make sure it would make a commit,
were there no issues with the argument given to the -C option.
Signed-off-by: Kacper Kornet <draenog@pld-linux.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
