* [PATCH] request-pull: return the entered branch if more branches are at the same commit @ 2010-04-07 22:22 Lars Jarnbo Pedersen 2010-04-08 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Lars Jarnbo Pedersen @ 2010-04-07 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: gitster Currently request-pull identifies the branch to pull from by finding the commit using rev-parse and then identifying the branch from the commit using ls-remote. If more branches are pointing to the same commit the first will be chosen even if the one we entered in the command-line exist. This change returns the same branch as entered at the commandline if it exists in refs/heads. Signed-off-by: Lars Jarnbo Pedersen <lars.jarnbo.pedersen@gmail.com> --- git-request-pull.sh | 10 ++++++++++ 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-request-pull.sh b/git-request-pull.sh index 8fd15f6..787383f 100755 --- a/git-request-pull.sh +++ b/git-request-pull.sh @@ -49,11 +49,21 @@ merge_base=`git merge-base $baserev $headrev` || die "fatal: No commits in common between $base and $head" branch=$(git ls-remote "$url" \ + | sed -n -e "/^$headrev refs.heads.$head/{ + s/^.* refs.heads.// + p + q + }") + +if [ -z "$branch" ]; then + branch=$(git ls-remote "$url" \ | sed -n -e "/^$headrev refs.heads./{ s/^.* refs.heads.// p q }") +fi + url=$(get_remote_url "$url") if [ -z "$branch" ]; then echo "warn: No branch of $url is at:" >&2 -- 1.7.1.rc0.1.ga751b ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] request-pull: return the entered branch if more branches are at the same commit 2010-04-07 22:22 [PATCH] request-pull: return the entered branch if more branches are at the same commit Lars Jarnbo Pedersen @ 2010-04-08 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano 2010-04-08 20:37 ` Lars Jarnbo Pedersen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-04-08 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lars.Jarnbo.Pedersen; +Cc: git Lars Jarnbo Pedersen <lars.jarnbo.pedersen@gmail.com> writes: > git-request-pull.sh | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/git-request-pull.sh b/git-request-pull.sh > index 8fd15f6..787383f 100755 > --- a/git-request-pull.sh > +++ b/git-request-pull.sh > @@ -49,11 +49,21 @@ merge_base=`git merge-base $baserev $headrev` || > die "fatal: No commits in common between $base and $head" > > branch=$(git ls-remote "$url" \ > + | sed -n -e "/^$headrev refs.heads.$head/{ Isn't $head often omitted, defaulting to HEAD? Since the original version of this logic was written, git has changed a lot, not in an incompatible way, but simply it got a lot richer. Some assumptions the script made when it was written may need to be revisited, working backwards from the command line to see what we can compute better and how. $ git request-pull [options] start url [end] When "end" is specified, and if that is the name of a branch, we know what branch you are talking about. We can dereference HEAD with symbolic-ref if "end" was missing and we defaulted to HEAD. Either way, in majority of the cases, the user has pushed out the tip of a local branch and that is what "end" would be. But that "end" branch may not necessarily be the name of the branch your publishing repository has. By looking at configured refspec mapping and the push.default configuration, we can tell which remote ref a push to the url should have updated. The script predates many configurations that control this process, and that is the primary reason it currently guesses from ls-remote output. You are introducing something better than a guess, but it is not quite there, I suspect. Who says that your branch 'my/topic' will push to your published branch 'my/topic', not 'topic' with "push = my/topic:topic", or "branch.my/topic.merge = topic", for example? We can take one step at a time, and your patch might be a good first step in the right direction, but I think overhauling this script to be more aware of the ref mapping is worth discussing before moving forward. After such a discussion, it may turn out that majority of people do: $ git push $my_public_repo master~3:for-linus and say "git request-pull origin master~3", in which case the current program output is already correct and the new code may not be adding much value in practice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] request-pull: return the entered branch if more branches are at the same commit 2010-04-08 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2010-04-08 20:37 ` Lars Jarnbo Pedersen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Lars Jarnbo Pedersen @ 2010-04-08 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git Hi, I clearly did not understand the full usage of the request-pull command when I wrote this patch. The development group I'm working with uses the request-pull command in a pretty "naive" way. We all have one or more development repos all cloning from the same public repo. We have one "Release Manager" that puts the next release together by pulling from our development repos on request. When the next release is ready the public repo gets updated. When I want to notify the Release Manager that I have new commits I run the following command: git request-pull origin/master <my repo> my_dev_branch So we dont use public repos for each developer (even if it may be best practice) and therefore I missed some of the points of the request-pull command. My main problem with the fact that request-pull may pick the wrong branch is that there is often a delay between sending of the request-pull command and the Release Manager actually pulling the commits and therefore pulling from the wrong branch is potentially very dangerous. That said I agree with all of your points below. Regards, - Lars On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 18:45 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lars Jarnbo Pedersen <lars.jarnbo.pedersen@gmail.com> writes: > > > git-request-pull.sh | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/git-request-pull.sh b/git-request-pull.sh > > index 8fd15f6..787383f 100755 > > --- a/git-request-pull.sh > > +++ b/git-request-pull.sh > > @@ -49,11 +49,21 @@ merge_base=`git merge-base $baserev $headrev` || > > die "fatal: No commits in common between $base and $head" > > > > branch=$(git ls-remote "$url" \ > > + | sed -n -e "/^$headrev refs.heads.$head/{ > > Isn't $head often omitted, defaulting to HEAD? > > Since the original version of this logic was written, git has changed a > lot, not in an incompatible way, but simply it got a lot richer. Some > assumptions the script made when it was written may need to be revisited, > working backwards from the command line to see what we can compute better > and how. > > $ git request-pull [options] start url [end] > > When "end" is specified, and if that is the name of a branch, we know what > branch you are talking about. We can dereference HEAD with symbolic-ref > if "end" was missing and we defaulted to HEAD. Either way, in majority of > the cases, the user has pushed out the tip of a local branch and that is > what "end" would be. > > But that "end" branch may not necessarily be the name of the branch your > publishing repository has. By looking at configured refspec mapping and > the push.default configuration, we can tell which remote ref a push to the > url should have updated. The script predates many configurations that > control this process, and that is the primary reason it currently guesses > from ls-remote output. > > You are introducing something better than a guess, but it is not quite > there, I suspect. Who says that your branch 'my/topic' will push to your > published branch 'my/topic', not 'topic' with "push = my/topic:topic", or > "branch.my/topic.merge = topic", for example? > > We can take one step at a time, and your patch might be a good first step > in the right direction, but I think overhauling this script to be more > aware of the ref mapping is worth discussing before moving forward. After > such a discussion, it may turn out that majority of people do: > > $ git push $my_public_repo master~3:for-linus > > and say "git request-pull origin master~3", in which case the current > program output is already correct and the new code may not be adding much > value in practice. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-08 20:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-04-07 22:22 [PATCH] request-pull: return the entered branch if more branches are at the same commit Lars Jarnbo Pedersen 2010-04-08 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano 2010-04-08 20:37 ` Lars Jarnbo Pedersen
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.