* Question on git fetch to bare repo @ 2007-02-08 22:28 Bill Lear 2007-02-08 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bill Lear @ 2007-02-08 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git If I have not yet made myself unwelcome, I now have another problem using git 1.4.4.1. I have a public bare repo I created yesterday: % mkdir project && cd project % git --bare init-db --shared % git --bare fetch git://source/project [All seems well] I have a private repo: % mkdir project && cd project % git clone /repos/git/project [All is well] A co-worker checks something in to our company repo, so I go to my public repo to fetch the changes: % cd /repos/git/project % git --bare fetch -v git://source/project remote: Generating pack... remote: Done counting 230 objects. remote: Result has 152 objects. remote: Deltifying 152 objects. remote: 100% (152/152) done Unpacking 152 objects remote: Total 152, written 152 (delta 109), reused 90 (delta 51) 100% (152/152) done * fetched git://source/project commit: 5c2d43d I then go to my private repo to pull from my public one: % cd ~/project % git branch topic * master % git pull Already up-to-date. % cat .git/remotes/origin URL: /repos/git/project Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin Pull: refs/heads/topic:refs/heads/topic [All seems well with this repo ??] I try to push from my private to my public: % git push /repos/git/project Everything up-to-date I go back to my public repo, and poking around, can't see what is wrong. The commit that the fetch says it pulled is there, if I do: % cd /repos/git/project % git --bare show -t 5c2d43d the patch comes out exactly as it did in my email notification, so I know it's there. I tried then to be more forceful, and did another fetch like this, which I sort of expected to fail: % git --bare fetch -v git://source/project master:master remote: Generating pack... remote: Done counting 230 objects. remote: Result has 152 objects. remote: Deltifying 152 objects. remote: 100% (152/152) done Unpacking 152 objects remote: Total 152, written 152 (delta 109), reused 90 (delta 51) 100% (152/152) done * refs/heads/master: fast forward to branch 'master' of git://source/project old..new: 37e2298..5c2d43d Cannot fetch into the current branch. Having enabled the logs, I can investigate a bit: % cat logs/refs/heads/master 37e229835103a11365b1e081f9b9987a88437e62 5c2d43dc819fc1bc37ebae1696c3fbfd6a4401db Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com> 1170973321 -0600 fetch git://source/project: fast-forward 5c2d43dc819fc1bc37ebae1696c3fbfd6a4401db 37e229835103a11365b1e081f9b9987a88437e62 Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com> 1170973321 -0600 fetch git://source/project: Undoing incorrectly fetched HEAD. And, my branches seem to be there, properly: % git --bare branch topic * master So, I'm confused. Why does my fetch seem to fetch things the first time, yet I cannot pull these into my private repo? I could swear I just did this same sequence of operations on Monday and it worked. Perhaps I just need a vacation ... Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-08 22:28 Question on git fetch to bare repo Bill Lear @ 2007-02-08 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-02-09 0:22 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jakub Narebski @ 2007-02-08 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Bill Lear wrote: > I have a public bare repo I created yesterday: > > % mkdir project && cd project > % git --bare init-db --shared > % git --bare fetch git://source/project > [All seems well] _Seems_ well % git clone --bare --shared git://source/project project is a proper invocation. -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-08 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski @ 2007-02-09 0:22 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-02-09 0:24 ` Johannes Schindelin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-02-09 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git, Bill Lear Hi, [Jakub, you broke the thread. I Cc' Bill, but I cannot join the thread] On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote: > Bill Lear wrote: > > > I have a public bare repo I created yesterday: > > > > % mkdir project && cd project > > % git --bare init-db --shared > > % git --bare fetch git://source/project > > [All seems well] > > _Seems_ well > > % git clone --bare --shared git://source/project project > > is a proper invocation. No. init --shared means that the repository is set up such that different users can update branches. clone --shared means that if the original repository is on the local machine (which it is not in your example), then that is used as an alternate, i.e. the objects are not copied at all, but reused from the other location. I complained about that ambiguity, but I am probably the guilty person: AFAIR it was me who introduced "init --shared". Ciao, Dscho ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-09 0:22 ` Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-02-09 0:24 ` Johannes Schindelin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-02-09 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git, Bill Lear Hi, On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > [Jakub, you broke the thread. I Cc' Bill, but I cannot join the thread] Sorry, PEBCAK. The thread is not broken, but you -- again -- did not reply to the original poster. Ciao, Dscho ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-08 22:28 Question on git fetch to bare repo Bill Lear 2007-02-08 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski @ 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King 2007-02-09 4:19 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2007-02-09 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Lear; +Cc: git On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 04:28:29PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: > % mkdir project && cd project > % git --bare init-db --shared > % git --bare fetch git://source/project > [All seems well] It's not. You have fetched the objects from git://source/project, and FETCH_HEAD (an ephemeral pointer to the things you just fetched) points to them. But look in project/refs/heads; you have no branches! What you want instead is: git --bare fetch git://source/project master:master which means "fetch project's master and store it as my master; if it's not a fast-forward, then complain loudly. Don't do any merges." > I have a private repo: > > % mkdir project && cd project > % git clone /repos/git/project > [All is well] Is it? You shouldn't have any branches in /repos/git/project at this point. > A co-worker checks something in to our company repo, so I go to my > public repo to fetch the changes: > > % cd /repos/git/project > % git --bare fetch -v git://source/project > remote: Generating pack... > remote: Done counting 230 objects. > remote: Result has 152 objects. > remote: Deltifying 152 objects. > remote: 100% (152/152) done > Unpacking 152 objects > remote: Total 152, written 152 (delta 109), reused 90 (delta 51) > 100% (152/152) done > * fetched git://source/project > commit: 5c2d43d Again, you're not _storing_ those changes in a branch, you're just putting them in FETCH_HEAD. > I then go to my private repo to pull from my public one: > > % cd ~/project > % git branch > topic > * master > % git pull > Already up-to-date. Not surprising, since you didn't actually update any branches in the previous step. > % cat .git/remotes/origin > URL: /repos/git/project > Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin > Pull: refs/heads/topic:refs/heads/topic > [All seems well with this repo ??] I'm confused as to how there are branches in the 'public' repo at this step, since your initial fetch shouldn't have actually made any, especially not a 'topic' branch. > % cd /repos/git/project > % git --bare show -t 5c2d43d > > the patch comes out exactly as it did in my email notification, so I > know it's there. Sure, you have the object, but you don't have any _pointers_ to it. > I tried then to be more forceful, and did another fetch like this, > which I sort of expected to fail: > > % git --bare fetch -v git://source/project master:master > remote: Generating pack... > remote: Done counting 230 objects. > remote: Result has 152 objects. > remote: Deltifying 152 objects. > remote: 100% (152/152) done > Unpacking 152 objects > remote: Total 152, written 152 (delta 109), reused 90 (delta 51) > 100% (152/152) done > * refs/heads/master: fast forward to branch 'master' of git://source/project > old..new: 37e2298..5c2d43d > Cannot fetch into the current branch. You're more on the right track here, but not quite. If you want to save things in branches, you either need to use a 'remotes' shorthand (which defines pull lines with refspecs) or you need to specify the refspec on the command line (like master:master). However, you _don't_ want to fetch directly into your master branch. fetch is for copying refs and objects, not for merging (and you've presumably made some commits on master that the upstream doesn't have). It seems like you're trying to merge in your "public" repository, which is a mistake. I think you would be much better served to think of your public repository as a place where you publish changes (_only_ from your private repository), and do all of your external fetching and merging in your private repository. Everyone has a public repo, so you always "pull" from other people's public repos, and "push" into your public repo. Thus you don't need --shared at all. IOW, do this: # set up public repository; initially empty, but we will push something # useful into it soon. mkdir /git/repo/project && cd /git/repo/project git --bare init # set up our private repository, which is a clone of the company repo cd $HOME git clone git://source/project # at this point, our .git/remotes/origin file is set up to pull from # the company repo. But we still want to publish our changes in our # personal public repo. Let's set that up. We always want the public # branches to match ours, even if we've reset or rebased, so we use '+' # to always overwrite. This is safe, because data is never getting into # the public repo in any way _except_ for us pushing it. cat >.git/remotes/publish <<'EOF' URL: /git/repo/project Push: +master:master Push: +topic:topic # now we can make our first publication, which at this point is the same # as the source repo git push publish # and now we make some changes hack hack hack git commit # and we can publish more changes git push publish # but now we want to grab some changes from Bob's public repo. Let's set # up a new remote for him. Again, we use '+' to overwrite, since we are # just tracking what Bob is doing. Note that we have Bob's branch now, # but we don't _publish_ it, since it's not in our publish remote. cat >.git/remotes/bob <<'EOF' URL: /path/to/bobs/repo Pull: +master:bob-master EOF # and now we can fetch/pull from bob git fetch bob # what has bob done that we haven't? gitk bob-master..master # ok, let's merge git pull . bob-master # or do the fetch/pull in one step git pull bob master And Bob can of course do the same to us. Does that make more sense? Or have I completely missed what you are trying to accomplish? :) -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King @ 2007-02-09 4:19 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bill Lear @ 2007-02-09 4:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: git On Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 21:39:41 (-0500) Jeff King writes: >... >Does that make more sense? Or have I completely missed what you are >trying to accomplish? :) No, you haven't misunderstood. This gives me yet more options, so thank you very much. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King 2007-02-09 4:19 ` Bill Lear @ 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-13 4:54 ` Jeff King 2007-02-13 5:28 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bill Lear @ 2007-02-12 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: git On Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 21:39:41 (-0500) Jeff King writes: >... >You're more on the right track here, but not quite. If you want to save >things in branches, you either need to use a 'remotes' shorthand (which >defines pull lines with refspecs) or you need to specify the refspec on >the command line (like master:master). However, you _don't_ want to >fetch directly into your master branch. fetch is for copying refs and >objects, not for merging (and you've presumably made some commits on >master that the upstream doesn't have). > >It seems like you're trying to merge in your "public" repository, which >is a mistake. I think you would be much better served to think of your >public repository as a place where you publish changes (_only_ from your >private repository), and do all of your external fetching and merging in >your private repository. Everyone has a public repo, so you always >"pull" from other people's public repos, and "push" into your public >repo. Thus you don't need --shared at all. Ok, I've gotten some time to read through this. Kinda sad that something published 4 days ago seems like the distant past ... The problem I have with doing all of my fetching and merging in my private repo is this: I have an update hook in my public repo that I use to communicate my changes to my peers. The problem is when I pull from a peer's repo into my private repo, make some of my changes, and then publish (push) my changes to the public repo, HIS changes are pushed as well, and the update script naturally picks up on these and broadcasts them. My peer group ends up getting the same update message about his commits that they have already received. Multiply this among 6 peers and it becomes a real headache. On the other hand, if I fetch his changes into my public (bare) repo first, and then pull from there into my private, make changes in my private and then commit and publish to my public, the update script will send out my changes --- and only MY changes --- to my peers. So, what I have (just now) tried to do (using the latest 1.5 code), is clone my public repo to create my private repo: % git clone /repos/git/project and my .git/config file is now: % cat .git/config [core] repositoryformatversion = 0 filemode = true bare = false logallrefupdates = true [remote "origin"] url = /repos/git/project fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master and no .git/remotes/origin exists. I notice that this did not "clone" all the branches in my public repo: % git branch * master whereas in my public repo: % cd /repos/git/project % git --bare branch topic * master So, regardless if I can correct that (very confused as to why the clone did not grab the branch), it seems that I did not make my intent clear... I'm still not sure if I'm obeying the "don't develop on anything on the RHS of ':' dictum". I'm going to puzzle over the rest of your advice to see if I can grok it and fold it into the new (1.5) way of life. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear @ 2007-02-13 4:54 ` Jeff King 2007-02-13 5:28 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2007-02-13 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Lear; +Cc: git On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:47:02PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: > The problem I have with doing all of my fetching and merging in my > private repo is this: I have an update hook in my public repo that I > use to communicate my changes to my peers. The problem is when I pull > from a peer's repo into my private repo, make some of my changes, and > then publish (push) my changes to the public repo, HIS changes are > pushed as well, and the update script naturally picks up on these and > broadcasts them. My peer group ends up getting the same update > message about his commits that they have already received. Multiply > this among 6 peers and it becomes a real headache. Interesting. Why not have your update hook know who you are, and send out changes only for commits that are either authored by you, or committed by you (depending on your workflow, these may have different results)? Something like this (mostly untested!) on top of the stock update hook: diff --git a/templates/hooks--update b/templates/hooks--update index d4253cb..1598f1b 100644 --- a/templates/hooks--update +++ b/templates/hooks--update @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ projectdesc=$(cat $GIT_DIR/description) recipients=$(git-repo-config hooks.mailinglist) announcerecipients=$(git-repo-config hooks.announcelist) allowunannotated=$(git-repo-config --bool hooks.allowunannotated) +authorfilter=$(git-repo-config hooks.authorfilter) # --- Check types newrev_type=$(git-cat-file -t "$newrev") @@ -148,7 +149,7 @@ case "$refname_type" in # This shows all log entries that are not already covered by # another ref - i.e. commits that are now accessible from this # ref that were previously not accessible - git-rev-list --pretty $newref $(git-rev-parse --not --all) + git-rev-list ${authorfilter:+--author="$authorfilter"} --pretty $newref $(git-rev-parse --not --all) echo $LOGEND else # oldrev is valid @@ -165,7 +166,7 @@ case "$refname_type" in baserev=$(git-merge-base $oldrev $newrev) # Commit with a parent - for rev in $(git-rev-list $newrev ^$baserev) + for rev in $(git-rev-list ${authorfilter:+--author="$authorfilter"} $newrev ^$baserev) do revtype=$(git-cat-file -t "$rev") echo " via $rev ($revtype)" @@ -190,7 +191,7 @@ case "$refname_type" in fi echo "" echo $LOGBEGIN - git-rev-list --pretty $newrev ^$baserev + git-rev-list ${authorfilter:+--author="$authorfilter"} --pretty $newrev ^$baserev echo $LOGEND echo "" echo "Diffstat:" Just set hooks.authorfilter in your config to 'Bill Lear'. Note that this still gives the _full_ diffstat between the two endpoints. I would think you would really want to show a diffstat for each filtered commit individually. And you're probably not using this hook currently, but I hope it should be obvious how to modify whatever you are using. Of course, what you're doing now isn't _wrong_, once we fix the "committing on tracking branches" problem (which it looks like you are addressing below), so don't let me drag you too far from your workflow. :) > So, what I have (just now) tried to do (using the latest 1.5 code), Good, 1.5 is much more pleasant to work with. :) > [remote "origin"] > url = /repos/git/project > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* So this means everything in your public repo's refs/heads/* is mirrored in your private refs/remotes/origin/*. > [branch "master"] > remote = origin > merge = refs/heads/master And the local branch master will merge from origin's refs/heads/master. > and no .git/remotes/origin exists. Right, the config above supersedes it. > I notice that this did not "clone" all the branches in my public repo: > > % git branch > * master > > whereas in my public repo: > > % cd /repos/git/project > % git --bare branch > topic > * master It did clone it; git-branch just doesn't print remote branches by default. Try 'git branch -a'. You can create a new topic branch from your origin topic branch like this: git checkout -b topic origin/topic If you want it to pull automagically from the upstream topic (when you do a git-pull without any arguments), then you need a config similar to what it automatically set up for master: [branch "topic"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/topic > I'm still not sure if I'm obeying the "don't develop on anything > on the RHS of ':' dictum". You are, because 1.5 makes it much harder to do so. Doing a 'git-checkout topic' won't work until you create a local topic branch. With the detached head work in 1.5, you _can_ do this: git checkout origin/topic but it will issue a warning. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-13 4:54 ` Jeff King @ 2007-02-13 5:28 ` Junio C Hamano 2007-02-13 5:31 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-02-13 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Lear; +Cc: Jeff King, git Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com> writes: > The problem I have with doing all of my fetching and merging in my > private repo is this: I have an update hook in my public repo that I > use to communicate my changes to my peers. The problem is when I pull > from a peer's repo into my private repo, make some of my changes, and > then publish (push) my changes to the public repo, HIS changes are > pushed as well, and the update script naturally picks up on these and > broadcasts them. My peer group ends up getting the same update > message about his commits that they have already received. Multiply > this among 6 peers and it becomes a real headache. I suspect that is because your "email when pushed" hook lists what commits are new on the branch. I do not use any "email when pushed" hook myself, so I do not know how yours is set up, but I suspect it is doing a moral equivalent of: #!/bin/sh name=<name of the branch the email will talk about> old=<commit before this push updates the branch tip> new=<commit this push is trying to update the branch tip with> git shortlog $old..$new | mailx -s "branch $name updated" recipients That behaviour might be desirable when branches in the repositories are more or less independent, but in situations like yours where commit are cross pushed into each other's branches, you are not necessarily interested in the progress of each branch. One solution would be to list only the new commits introduced by the push into the repository, regardless of the branch. You can replace the "git-shortlog $old..$new" with: git shortlog $new --not --all to get that information, I think. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Question on git fetch to bare repo 2007-02-13 5:28 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2007-02-13 5:31 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2007-02-13 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Bill Lear, git On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 09:28:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > One solution would be to list only the new commits introduced by > the push into the repository, regardless of the branch. You can > replace the "git-shortlog $old..$new" with: > > git shortlog $new --not --all > > to get that information, I think. I don't think that addresses his concern. I had suggested to him that he do all pulling/merging in his private repo, then simply keep the public repo as a mirror. In that case, when pushing out to the public repo, _all_ commits will likely be new to the public repo, including those ones that he pulled from elsewhere. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-02-13 5:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-02-08 22:28 Question on git fetch to bare repo Bill Lear 2007-02-08 22:34 ` Jakub Narebski 2007-02-09 0:22 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-02-09 0:24 ` Johannes Schindelin 2007-02-09 2:39 ` Jeff King 2007-02-09 4:19 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-12 20:47 ` Bill Lear 2007-02-13 4:54 ` Jeff King 2007-02-13 5:28 ` Junio C Hamano 2007-02-13 5:31 ` Jeff King
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.