* Re: Split commit graphs and commit-graph read
2019-11-11 1:19 ` Derrick Stolee
@ 2019-11-11 2:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-11-11 3:29 ` Jeff King
2019-11-12 0:28 ` Bryan Turner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-11-11 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Bryan Turner, Git Users, peff
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> To fix this issue, I would probably go about it by removing the "read"
> subcommand and creating a "test-tool read-commit-graph" for the tests
> that need that output.
>
> If others on-list think that the better thing to do is to update the
> "read" subcommand to provide the same output, but iterate over each
> layer of an incremental commit-graph, then I can do that work instead.
I think moving it to test-tool is a good idea, whether the output
presents a single result that consolidates all layers together, or
allows to name just a single layer and shows its contents. I do not
have a strong opinion between the two (both sounds usable debugging
aid).
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Split commit graphs and commit-graph read
2019-11-11 1:19 ` Derrick Stolee
2019-11-11 2:09 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2019-11-11 3:29 ` Jeff King
2019-11-12 0:28 ` Bryan Turner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2019-11-11 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Bryan Turner, Git Users, gitster
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 08:19:20PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > Running some tests with commands like git for-each-ref and git
> > rev-list shows that the "split" commit graph is being used (setting
> > core.commitGraph=false makes commands noticeably slower), so
> > functionally all seems well. But should git commit-graph read be
> > handling this better?
>
> Unfortunately, you're running into an issue because I designed the
> "read" subcommand poorly (and also forgot to update it for
> incremental commit-graph files). The biggest issue is that "read"
> is not really meant for end-users. It really should have been built
> as a test-tool. This point was corrected when I got around to writing
> the multi-pack-index since it uses "test-tool read-midx" instead of
> add.
>
> To fix this issue, I would probably go about it by removing the "read"
> subcommand and creating a "test-tool read-commit-graph" for the tests
> that need that output.
>
> If others on-list think that the better thing to do is to update the
> "read" subcommand to provide the same output, but iterate over each
> layer of an incremental commit-graph, then I can do that work instead.
In theory I suppose one could use it to debug a commit-graph file "in
the field" as it were, where somebody does not necessarily have the
test-tool programs. But in practice, I have not ever done that (I didn't
even know "commit-graph read" was there), and it's not that big a deal
to just have a build of git.git handy.
I'd be much more likely to use "commit-graph verify". And perhaps it
could grow a "--verbose" flag if somebody really wants that (but I think
it would be fine to punt until somebody cares enough to do so).
I guess dropping the sub-command is technically a backwards incompatible
change, but since it didn't do anything that normal users would find
useful in the first place, I wouldn't be sorry to see it go.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Split commit graphs and commit-graph read
2019-11-11 1:19 ` Derrick Stolee
2019-11-11 2:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-11-11 3:29 ` Jeff King
@ 2019-11-12 0:28 ` Bryan Turner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bryan Turner @ 2019-11-12 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Derrick Stolee; +Cc: Git Users, peff, gitster
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 5:19 PM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But git commit-graph read isn't:
> > .../objects$ git commit-graph read
> > fatal: Could not open commit-graph
> > '/path/to/repository/objects/info/commit-graph': No such file or
> > directory
> >
> > Running some tests with commands like git for-each-ref and git
> > rev-list shows that the "split" commit graph is being used (setting
> > core.commitGraph=false makes commands noticeably slower), so
> > functionally all seems well. But should git commit-graph read be
> > handling this better?
>
> Unfortunately, you're running into an issue because I designed the
> "read" subcommand poorly (and also forgot to update it for
> incremental commit-graph files). The biggest issue is that "read"
> is not really meant for end-users. It really should have been built
> as a test-tool. This point was corrected when I got around to writing
> the multi-pack-index since it uses "test-tool read-midx" instead of
> add.
>
> To fix this issue, I would probably go about it by removing the "read"
> subcommand and creating a "test-tool read-commit-graph" for the tests
> that need that output.
>
> If others on-list think that the better thing to do is to update the
> "read" subcommand to provide the same output, but iterate over each
> layer of an incremental commit-graph, then I can do that work instead.
I was only running "git commit-graph read" as another way of verifying
that everything looked good (to Git, that is). I'd already run "git
commit-graph verify" and just found the discrepancy in their behavior
surprising/interesting. For what it's worth, I personally don't see
anything amiss with removing the "read" subcommand if that's simpler
than updating it to handle incremental graphs. (Put differently, it's
not a command I'd ever have Bitbucket Server run, or that I'm likely
to try and run going forward. In this case I just completed some
commit graph-related changes to Bitbucket Server and was looking for
every possible avenue I could pursue to try and ensure what I did was
producing the "correct" output after my changes got deployed to our
internal dogfooding server.)
Thanks for taking the time to look into it and clarify the behavior! I
really appreciate it.
Best regards,
Bryan Turner
>
> Thanks,
> -Stolee
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread