Re: [PATCH] scripts/setlocalversion: Improve -dirty check with git-status --no-optional-locks

[Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>]

Hi Alexander,

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:36 AM Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:09 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> > > An even simpler approach would be:
> > >
> > > {
> > >         git --no-optional-locks status -uno --porcelain 2>/dev/null ||
> > >         git diff-index --name-only HEAD
> > > } | grep -qv scripts/package &&
> > >         printf '%s' -dirty
> > >
> > > Sample run:
> > > cmd
> > > sh: cmd: command not found
> > >
> > > {
> > >         cmd 2>/dev/null ||
> > >         date
> > > } | grep -q 2018 &&
> > >         printf '%s' ok
> > > ok
> >
> > You lose accuracy here, because now you're skipping any line that
> > contains 'scripts/package', which would include, e.g., paths like
> >
> >   tools/some/other-scripts/package
> >
> > Maybe if the grep expression were more like this?
> >
> >   grep -qv '^\(.. \)\?scripts/package'
> >
> > I think it'd be safe enough to ignore paths that start with two
> > characters and a space, like:
> >
> > xy scripts/package
> > x/ scripts/package
> >
> > Brian
>
> Thanks for your input.
> I've found the following grep command, that uses extended regular
> expressions, to work as required:

Is there any good reason you switched to extended? It looks like my
(basic regex) grep was equivalent.

> {
>         echo hello
>         echo scripts/package
>         echo '.. scripts/package'
>         echo tools/some/other-scripts/package
> } | grep -Ev '^(.. )?scripts/package'
>
> [Output]
> hello
> tools/some/other-scripts/package
>
> If the participants of this email exchange consider the proposed
> implementation as fitting the bill,
>
> {
>         git --no-optional-locks status -uno --porcelain 2>/dev/null ||
>         git diff-index --name-only HEAD
> } | grep -Eqv '^(.. )?scripts/package' &&
>         printf '%s' -dirty
>
> Was the original committer of the patch proposed here,
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/10/55, going to take it in, and resend it
> as v2 of the patch, or did you want me to submit the patch instead?
> I would be happy with either way.

I can submit it. I expect Masahiro-san would prefer a proper v2 patch
for review, given how much would change from my v1.

And this time, I'll actually test it with a non-dirty tree! (Of
course, my tree is naturally dirty when developing the patch, but I
missed testing post-commit...)

Brian