From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, peff@peff.net,
Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: add --no-update-remote-refs
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:13:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa76lew1l.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pull.532.git.1579274939431.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:28:59 +0000")
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>
> To prevent long blocking time during a 'git fetch' call, a user
> may want to set up a schedule for background 'git fetch' processes.
> However, these runs will update the refs/remotes branches, and
> hence the user will not notice when remote refs are updated during
> their foreground fetches. In fact, they may _want_ those refs to
> stay put so they can work with the refs from their last foreground
> fetch call.
I've always hated anything that makes the remote-tracking refs
"float" and surprise end users. I even hated that 'git push' that
pretends as if we immediately turned around and fetched from the
remote we just pushed when it was introduced, even though I gave up
by now.
So I am OK in principle to make it more difficult to update
refs/remotes/* while the end-user is looking the other way, but I
had to wonder why "git fetch" is even being done if it is done to
silently update/catch-up remote-tracking branches automatically in
the first place.
This is more like a "preload" option---without updating the end-user
visible set of remote-tracking branches, you can make the data
available earlier so that the actual "fetch" the end-user runs in
order to update the remote-tracking branches can complete faster and
become ready to be used more quickly.
Which makes sense.
> Add a --[no-]update-remote-refs option to 'git fetch' which defaults
> to the existing behavior of updating the remote refs. This allows
> a user to run
>
> git fetch <remote> --no-update-remote-refs +refs/heads/*:refs/hidden/*
>
> to populate a custom ref space and download a pack of the new
> reachable objects.
Hmph. I have to wonder if this should have been the default. That
is, when refs/heads/X on the remote is configured to be copied to
refs/remotes/origin/X on this side, and an explicit refspec says it
should go some other place (i.e. refs/hidden/X), shouldn't that
automatically bypass configured +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
refspec? In any case, it is too late to change that now.
> This kind of call allows a few things to happen:
>
> 1. We download a new pack if refs have updated.
> 2. Since the refs/hidden branches exist, GC will not remove the
> newly-downloaded data.
Caution. Since you didn't make it "refs/hidden/<remote>/*", you
just made the data you fetched the same way with this shiny new
"--no-update-remote-tracking-branches" option from another remote
unanchored and susceptible to GCs.
> 3. With fetch.writeCommitGraph enabled, the refs/hidden refs are
> used to update the commit-graph file.
I have a moderately strong suspicion that it would be better to make
this "--ignore-configured-refspecs" and implemented without special
casign the "refs/remotes/" hierarchy like the code does by
hardcoding.
I also wonder if auto-following of tags should be disabled at the
same time. I have no good argument either way (yet).
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-17 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-17 15:28 [PATCH] fetch: add --no-update-remote-refs Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-01-17 16:23 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-01-17 19:13 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2020-01-17 19:26 ` Jeff King
2020-01-20 14:44 ` Derrick Stolee
2020-01-17 19:20 ` Jeff King
2020-01-21 0:57 ` Derrick Stolee
2020-01-21 1:38 ` [PATCH v2] fetch: document and test --refmap="" Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-01-21 16:24 ` Jeff King
2020-01-21 18:01 ` Derrick Stolee
2020-01-21 19:06 ` Jeff King
2020-01-21 18:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-01-21 18:24 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqa76lew1l.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).