Re: [PATCH 1/3] t9350: point out that refs are not updated correctly

From: Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>, "Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>,
	"Git List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Barkalow" <barkalow@iabervon.org>,
	"Ramkumar Ramachandra" <artagnon@gmail.com>,
	"Dmitry Ivankov" <divanorama@gmail.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"Eric Herman" <eric@freesa.org>,
	"Fernando Vezzosi" <buccia@repnz.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] t9350: point out that refs are not updated correctly
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 20:38:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGdFq_hmF8xDA8PdDUPygSSAVsvrA=BRVKp+eCVRggHxLZzBsQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111106043157.GM27272@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>

Heya,

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 05:31, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This happens only when the corresponding commits are not exported in
>> the current fast-export run. This can happen either when the relevant
>> commit is already marked, or when the commit is explicitly marked
>> as UNINTERESTING with a negative ref by another argument.
>
> The above "This" has no antecedent.  I guess you mean that
> fast-export writes no output when passed a range of the form A..A.

Well, it's referring to the subject, how about:

"When a commit has not been exported in the current fast-export run
its ref is not updated correctly. This can happen ...".

>> as they use marks
>> files to store which commits have already been seen. The call graph
>> is something as follows:
>>
>> $ # push master to remote repo
>> $ git fast-export --{im,ex}port-marks=marksfile master
>> $ # make a commit on master and push it to remote
>> $ git fast-export --{im,ex}port-marks=marksfile master
>> $ # run `git branch foo` and push it to remote
>> $ git fast-export --{im,ex}port-marks=marksfile foo
>>
>> When fast-export imports the marksfile and sees that all commits in
>> foo are marked as UNINTERESTING
>
> Hmm, I didn't know about this behavior.  Would it be possible to add
> a test for it, too?

What behavior are you referring to here? What kind of test would you want added?

>>  t/t9350-fast-export.sh |   11 +++++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> With or without the change suggested above, this new test seems to me
> like a good thing, even though in the longer term it might be nicer to
> teach fast-export to understand a syntax like
>
>        git fast-import ^master master:master
>
> Put another way, the possibility of something nicer later shouldn't
> stop us from adding an incremental refinement that improves things
> today.

Yes, extending the capabilities of fast-export is needed if we want
the remote-helpers to be as powerful as native git.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier