* Globbing for ignored branches? @ 2014-01-24 9:01 Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 16:37 ` Jim Garrison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git I would like to ignore branches that match a certain pattern, e.g.: markus@x4 gcc % git branch -a gcc-4.8 * master remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master remotes/origin/aldyh/cilk-in-gomp ... remotes/origin/hjl/arch remotes/origin/hjl/asan ... remotes/origin/hjl/x86/m16 remotes/origin/ifunc remotes/origin/jason/4.6-cxx0x remotes/origin/jason/alias-decl remotes/origin/jason/comdat-debug remotes/origin/lw-ipo remotes/origin/master ... Is it possible to ignore all branches that match "hjl"? -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* RE: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 9:01 Globbing for ignored branches? Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 16:37 ` Jim Garrison 2014-01-24 17:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jim Garrison @ 2014-01-24 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git > -----Original Message----- > Behalf Of Markus Trippelsdorf > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:01 AM > Subject: Globbing for ignored branches? > > I would like to ignore branches that match a certain pattern, e.g.: [snip] > > Is it possible to ignore all branches that match "hjl"? If you mean ignore them when you do "git branch -a", then git branch -a |grep -v hjl If you mean "ignore" in some other scenario you need to be more specific about what you want. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 16:37 ` Jim Garrison @ 2014-01-24 17:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 17:09 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Garrison; +Cc: git On 2014.01.24 at 16:37 +0000, Jim Garrison wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Behalf Of Markus Trippelsdorf > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:01 AM > > Subject: Globbing for ignored branches? > > > > I would like to ignore branches that match a certain pattern, e.g.: > [snip] > > > > Is it possible to ignore all branches that match "hjl"? > > > If you mean ignore them when you do "git branch -a", then > > git branch -a |grep -v hjl > > If you mean "ignore" in some other scenario you need to be more > specific about what you want. I want to them when I run "git pull". -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 17:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 17:09 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 18:23 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Garrison; +Cc: git On 2014.01.24 at 18:07 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2014.01.24 at 16:37 +0000, Jim Garrison wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Behalf Of Markus Trippelsdorf > > > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:01 AM > > > Subject: Globbing for ignored branches? > > > > > > I would like to ignore branches that match a certain pattern, e.g.: > > [snip] > > > > > > Is it possible to ignore all branches that match "hjl"? > > > > > > If you mean ignore them when you do "git branch -a", then > > > > git branch -a |grep -v hjl > > > > If you mean "ignore" in some other scenario you need to be more > > specific about what you want. > > I want to them when I run "git pull". ignore -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 17:09 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 18:23 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 18:32 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: Jim Garrison, git On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:09:09PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > If you mean "ignore" in some other scenario you need to be more > > > specific about what you want. > > > > I want to them when I run "git pull". > ignore I assume you mean that you do not want to fetch them at all, not that you want to avoid merging them. The set of branches that git fetches is configured by the fetch "refspec" in your config file. It usually looks like this: $ git config remote.origin.fetch +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* But you can specify a specific list of branches you want to fetch instead: $ git config --unset remote.origin.fetch $ for i in master other-branch; do git config --add remote.origin.fetch \ +refs/heads/$i:refs/remotes/origin/$i done However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify a negative refspec like that. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 18:23 ` Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 18:32 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 18:55 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Jim Garrison, git On 2014.01.24 at 13:23 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:09:09PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > If you mean "ignore" in some other scenario you need to be more > > > > specific about what you want. > > > > > > I want to them when I run "git pull". > > ignore > > I assume you mean that you do not want to fetch them at all, not that > you want to avoid merging them. The set of branches that git fetches is > configured by the fetch "refspec" in your config file. It usually looks > like this: > > $ git config remote.origin.fetch > +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* > > But you can specify a specific list of branches you want to fetch > instead: > > $ git config --unset remote.origin.fetch > $ for i in master other-branch; do > git config --add remote.origin.fetch \ > +refs/heads/$i:refs/remotes/origin/$i > done > > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify > a negative refspec like that. Thanks. Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating it more clearly). Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for the future? -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 18:32 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 18:55 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: Jim Garrison, git On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably > > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify > > a negative refspec like that. > > Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating > it more clearly). > Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for > the future? It is something that has been talked about before, but I do not think anybody is actively working on. It would probably not be too hard a feature if you are interested in getting your feet wet in git development. :) -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 18:55 ` Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:33 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 20:48 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-24 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, Jim Garrison, git Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >> > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably >> > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify >> > a negative refspec like that. >> >> Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating >> it more clearly). >> Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for >> the future? > > It is something that has been talked about before, but I do not think > anybody is actively working on. It would probably not be too hard a > feature if you are interested in getting your feet wet in git > development. :) The end result might be not so hard in the mechanical sense, but designing the interface would be hard. I do not offhand think of a good way to do this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-24 20:33 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 20:44 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:48 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Jeff King, Jim Garrison, git On 2014.01.24 at 12:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > >> > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably > >> > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify > >> > a negative refspec like that. > >> > >> Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating > >> it more clearly). > >> Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for > >> the future? > > > > It is something that has been talked about before, but I do not think > > anybody is actively working on. It would probably not be too hard a > > feature if you are interested in getting your feet wet in git > > development. :) > > The end result might be not so hard in the mechanical sense, but > designing the interface would be hard. I do not offhand think of a > good way to do this. I don't know if the in-tree regex engine supports negative lookaheads. If it does, then something like the following should work (to use my "hjl" example): ^(.(?!hjl))* -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 20:33 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 20:44 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:52 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-24 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: Jeff King, Jim Garrison, git Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes: > On 2014.01.24 at 12:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> > >> >> > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably >> >> > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify >> >> > a negative refspec like that. >> >> >> >> Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating >> >> it more clearly). >> >> Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for >> >> the future? >> > >> > It is something that has been talked about before, but I do not think >> > anybody is actively working on. It would probably not be too hard a >> > feature if you are interested in getting your feet wet in git >> > development. :) >> >> The end result might be not so hard in the mechanical sense, but >> designing the interface would be hard. I do not offhand think of a >> good way to do this. > > I don't know if the in-tree regex engine supports negative lookaheads. > If it does, then something like the following should work (to use my > "hjl" example): > > ^(.(?!hjl))* refspec wildcards are *NOT* regular expressions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 20:44 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-24 20:52 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Jeff King, Jim Garrison, git On 2014.01.24 at 12:44 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> writes: > > > On 2014.01.24 at 12:00 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >> > > >> >> > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably > >> >> > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify > >> >> > a negative refspec like that. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, that was the question I wanted to ask (, sorry for not formulating > >> >> it more clearly). > >> >> Is this "negative refspec for branches" a feature that is planned for > >> >> the future? > >> > > >> > It is something that has been talked about before, but I do not think > >> > anybody is actively working on. It would probably not be too hard a > >> > feature if you are interested in getting your feet wet in git > >> > development. :) > >> > >> The end result might be not so hard in the mechanical sense, but > >> designing the interface would be hard. I do not offhand think of a > >> good way to do this. > > > > I don't know if the in-tree regex engine supports negative lookaheads. > > If it does, then something like the following should work (to use my > > "hjl" example): > > > > ^(.(?!hjl))* > > refspec wildcards are *NOT* regular expressions. Yes, but that's the point. If they were, the "negative refspec" interface issue would be solved. -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:33 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-24 20:48 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, Jim Garrison, git On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:00:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > >> > However, you do have to specify each branch individually. You probably > >> > want to say "all branches except X", and you cannot currently specify > >> > a negative refspec like that. > [...] > The end result might be not so hard in the mechanical sense, but > designing the interface would be hard. I do not offhand think of a > good way to do this. I had imagined a "not" token at the front of the refspec, like: git fetch origin +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/heads/foo In this case, a colon in the refspec would be an error. An alternative would be: git fetch origin +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* refs/heads/foo: I.e., to say "put foo to nowhere". But generally refspecs do not affect each other. So "refs/heads/foo:refs/heads/bar" would generally work _in addition_ to the other refspec. Making the "null destination" work differently might be confusing. I dunno. I have not thought very hard on the topic, so maybe there are some subtle cases I am missing. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 20:48 ` Jeff King @ 2014-01-24 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-25 1:34 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-24 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, Jim Garrison, git Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > I had imagined a "not" token at the front of the refspec, like: > > git fetch origin +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/heads/foo > > In this case, a colon in the refspec would be an error. An alternative > would be: > > git fetch origin +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* refs/heads/foo: > > I.e., to say "put foo to nowhere". But generally refspecs do not affect > each other. Not really. You do not have to view it as "'not refs/heads/foo' is affecting the previous '+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*'". You can think of two refspecs "refs/heads/foo refs/heads/bar" are both affecting the "end result"; so far we only had a single way for multiple refspecs to affect the end result and that was a "union". Introducing "subtract" as another mode of combining is not too bad, I would think, at the conceptual level. > ... Making the "null destination" work > differently might be confusing. I tend to agree that "refs/heads/foo:" is being too cute and may be confusing, at least if it will be the only way to express this in the end-user-facing UI. Even some people were confused enough on a very sensible "push nothing to ref means deletion" to make us add another explicit way, "push --delete", to ask for the same thing. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-24 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2014-01-25 1:34 ` Jeff King 2014-01-25 14:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2014-01-25 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf, Jim Garrison, git On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:08:42PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Not really. You do not have to view it as "'not refs/heads/foo' is > affecting the previous '+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*'". > > You can think of two refspecs "refs/heads/foo refs/heads/bar" are > both affecting the "end result"; so far we only had a single way for > multiple refspecs to affect the end result and that was a "union". > Introducing "subtract" as another mode of combining is not too bad, > I would think, at the conceptual level. OK, I buy that line of reasoning. I assume that ordering should not matter (that is, we would apply all positive refspecs, and then subtract all negative refspecs). I took a quick look at the refspec code, and how bad it would be to implement this feature. It's rather a bit of a mess. It looks like there are three separate code paths to apply refspecs: - fetch uses get_ref_map, which calls get_fetch_map for each refspec; each refspec than expands into 0, 1, or multiple refs (if it's a pattern). You can mention a ref multiple times on the LHS of a refspec, and it may be fetched multiple times. After we have the whole list, we detect duplicate destinations, and either drop the duplicates (if all sources are the same) or complain (if there are different sources). - push uses match_push_refs, which calls get_ref_match for each ref (not refspec). So the loop is inside-out from fetch, and it looks like we do weird things with multiple matches. We seem to handle multiple explicit matches like: $ git push --dry-run tmp master:foo master:bar To tmp * [new branch] master -> foo * [new branch] master -> bar but we don't seem to do the same for pattern matches: $ git push --dry-run tmp refs/heads/*:refs/foo/* \ refs/heads/*:refs/bar/* To tmp * [new branch] master -> refs/foo/master we just take the first match, even though the two did not conflict. I doubt this comes up that much, but I do not see any reason this should not be doing the same as fetch: apply all refspecs to come up with a complete list, then cull duplicates. - @{upstream} uses apply_refspecs to convert a single name. This is also used by transport-helper's fetch_with_import and push_with_import. Which makes me think they do not handle overlapping refspecs at all, unlike the builtin counterparts. There is also query_refspecs, which underlies apply_refspecs. I'm not even sure I understand all of the uses there. The patch below implements negative refspecs for fetch, but does nothing for push and apply_refspecs (in fact, it probably makes them worse, because they've learned to parse negative refspecs, but not handle them properly). The helpers in the patch could probably be used to build support for the other code paths, but it really seems like there could stand to be some refactoring. I'm not sure if I have the time/stomach for it at the moment. But I'll post this here anyway in case somebody else is interested. > I tend to agree that "refs/heads/foo:" is being too cute and may be > confusing, at least if it will be the only way to express this in > the end-user-facing UI. Even some people were confused enough on a > very sensible "push nothing to ref means deletion" to make us add > another explicit way, "push --delete", to ask for the same thing. Agreed. I went with "^refs/heads/master" in the patch below, but I am open to other suggestions. --- diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c index 025bc3e..47f25e9 100644 --- a/builtin/fetch.c +++ b/builtin/fetch.c @@ -363,6 +363,8 @@ static struct ref *get_ref_map(struct transport *transport, tail = &rm->next; } + ref_map = apply_negative_refspecs(ref_map, refspecs, refspec_count); + return ref_remove_duplicates(ref_map); } diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c index a89efab..b7b20de 100644 --- a/remote.c +++ b/remote.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ static struct refspec s_tag_refspec = { 1, 0, 0, + 0, "refs/tags/*", "refs/tags/*" }; @@ -533,8 +534,14 @@ static struct refspec *parse_refspec_internal(int nr_refspec, const char **refsp rs[i].force = 1; lhs++; } + else if (*lhs == '^') { + rs[i].negative = 1; + lhs++; + } rhs = strrchr(lhs, ':'); + if (rs[i].negative && rhs) + goto invalid; /* * Before going on, special case ":" (or "+:") as a refspec @@ -1663,6 +1670,9 @@ int get_fetch_map(const struct ref *remote_refs, { struct ref *ref_map, **rmp; + if (refspec->negative) + return 0; + if (refspec->pattern) { ref_map = get_expanded_map(remote_refs, refspec); } else { @@ -1705,6 +1715,48 @@ int get_fetch_map(const struct ref *remote_refs, return 0; } +static int refspec_match(const struct refspec *refspec, + const char *name) +{ + if (refspec->pattern) + return match_name_with_pattern(refspec->src, name, NULL, NULL); + + return !strcmp(refspec->src, name); +} + +static int omit_name_by_refspec(const char *name, + const struct refspec *refspecs, + int nr_refspec) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < nr_refspec; i++) { + if (refspecs[i].negative && refspec_match(&refspecs[i], name)) + return 1; + } + return 0; +} + +struct ref *apply_negative_refspecs(struct ref *ref_map, + const struct refspec *refspecs, + int nr_refspec) +{ + struct ref **tail; + + for (tail = &ref_map; *tail; ) { + struct ref *ref = *tail; + + if (omit_name_by_refspec(ref->name, refspecs, nr_refspec)) { + *tail = ref->next; + free(ref->peer_ref); + free(ref); + } else + tail = &ref->next; + } + + return ref_map; +} + int resolve_remote_symref(struct ref *ref, struct ref *list) { if (!ref->symref) diff --git a/remote.h b/remote.h index fb7647f..534d365 100644 --- a/remote.h +++ b/remote.h @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct refspec { unsigned pattern : 1; unsigned matching : 1; unsigned exact_sha1 : 1; + unsigned negative : 1; char *src; char *dst; @@ -157,6 +158,10 @@ int ref_newer(const unsigned char *new_sha1, const unsigned char *old_sha1); */ struct ref *ref_remove_duplicates(struct ref *ref_map); +struct ref *apply_negative_refspecs(struct ref *ref_map, + const struct refspec *refspecs, + int nr_refspecs); + int valid_fetch_refspec(const char *refspec); struct refspec *parse_fetch_refspec(int nr_refspec, const char **refspec); ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-25 1:34 ` Jeff King @ 2014-01-25 14:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 17:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 20:02 ` Jeff King 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-25 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jim Garrison, git On 2014.01.24 at 20:34 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:08:42PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Not really. You do not have to view it as "'not refs/heads/foo' is > > affecting the previous '+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*'". > > > > You can think of two refspecs "refs/heads/foo refs/heads/bar" are > > both affecting the "end result"; so far we only had a single way for > > multiple refspecs to affect the end result and that was a "union". > > Introducing "subtract" as another mode of combining is not too bad, > > I would think, at the conceptual level. > > > I tend to agree that "refs/heads/foo:" is being too cute and may be > > confusing, at least if it will be the only way to express this in > > the end-user-facing UI. Even some people were confused enough on a > > very sensible "push nothing to ref means deletion" to make us add > > another explicit way, "push --delete", to ask for the same thing. > > Agreed. I went with "^refs/heads/master" in the patch below, but I am > open to other suggestions. Many thanks for the patch. It seems to work as advertised, but only if the negative refspec appears on a separate line. For example: [remote "origin"] url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* fetch = ^refs/remotes/hjl works fine, but: [remote "origin"] url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/remotes/hjl doesn't. (I think this happens because bad_ref_char in refs.c checks for '^'.) -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-25 14:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-25 17:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 20:02 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-25 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff King; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jim Garrison, git On 2014.01.25 at 15:15 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2014.01.24 at 20:34 -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:08:42PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > Not really. You do not have to view it as "'not refs/heads/foo' is > > > affecting the previous '+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*'". > > > > > > You can think of two refspecs "refs/heads/foo refs/heads/bar" are > > > both affecting the "end result"; so far we only had a single way for > > > multiple refspecs to affect the end result and that was a "union". > > > Introducing "subtract" as another mode of combining is not too bad, > > > I would think, at the conceptual level. > > > > > I tend to agree that "refs/heads/foo:" is being too cute and may be > > > confusing, at least if it will be the only way to express this in > > > the end-user-facing UI. Even some people were confused enough on a > > > very sensible "push nothing to ref means deletion" to make us add > > > another explicit way, "push --delete", to ask for the same thing. > > > > Agreed. I went with "^refs/heads/master" in the patch below, but I am > > open to other suggestions. > > Many thanks for the patch. It seems to work as advertised, but only if > the negative refspec appears on a separate line. For example: I've posted a wrong negative refspec. Sorry. Correction below. > [remote "origin"] > url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* > fetch = ^refs/remotes/hjl fetch = ^refs/remotes/origin/hjl > works fine, but: > > [remote "origin"] > url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/remotes/hjl fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/remotes/origin/hjl > doesn't. (I think this happens because bad_ref_char in refs.c checks for '^'.) -- Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Globbing for ignored branches? 2014-01-25 14:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 17:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf @ 2014-01-25 20:02 ` Jeff King 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jeff King @ 2014-01-25 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Trippelsdorf; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Jim Garrison, git On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 03:15:42PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > Many thanks for the patch. It seems to work as advertised, but only if > the negative refspec appears on a separate line. For example: > > [remote "origin"] > url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* > fetch = ^refs/remotes/hjl > > works fine, but: > > [remote "origin"] > url = git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* ^refs/remotes/hjl That does not have anything to do with the negative refspec. The config format is one refspec per "fetch" key, but you may have as many keys as you like. Doing: [remote "origin"] fetch = refs/heads/a:refs/heads/a refs/heads/b:refs/heads/b is similarly wrong. You need to do: [remote "origin"] fetch = refs/heads/a:refs/heads/a fetch = refs/heads/b:refs/heads/b instead. I believe that since space is forbidden in refnames, it should also be forbidden in refspecs, which means that we could interpret the first one as you expected without losing backwards compatibility. But I do not think there is any real advantage to doing so, aside from being more forgiving. I suspect the documentation in that area could be improved, though. -Peff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-01-25 20:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-01-24 9:01 Globbing for ignored branches? Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 16:37 ` Jim Garrison 2014-01-24 17:07 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 17:09 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 18:23 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 18:32 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 18:55 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:33 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 20:44 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-24 20:52 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-24 20:48 ` Jeff King 2014-01-24 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-01-25 1:34 ` Jeff King 2014-01-25 14:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 17:15 ` Markus Trippelsdorf 2014-01-25 20:02 ` Jeff King
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).