From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail•com>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org, Kevin Cagle <kcagle@micron•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] contrib/subtree bugfix: Can't `add` annotated tag
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 10:38:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqoaz841d3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1399511079-1994-1-git-send-email-nod.helm@gmail.com> (James Denholm's message of "Thu, 8 May 2014 11:04:39 +1000")
James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail•com> writes:
> cmd_add_commit() is passed FETCH_HEAD by cmd_add_repository, which is
> then rev-parsed into an object ID. However, if the user is fetching a
> tag rather than a branch HEAD, such as by executing:
>
> $ git subtree add -P oldGit https://github.com/git/git.git tags/v1.8.0
>
> The object ID is a tag and is never peeled, and the git commit-tree call
> (line 561) slaps us in the face because it doesn't handle tag IDs.
The "rev" (not "revs") seems to be used by more things than the
final commit-tree state. Are we losing some useful information by
peeling it too early like this patch does? The reason why we
stopped peeling when writing FETCH_HEAD was because we wanted to
record the fact that we merged a tag (and use the GPG signature if
found in it) when constructing the log message for the merge, and
peeling the tag too early and recording the commit in FETCH_HEAD
would make it impossible to do, and I am wondering if this change is
making the same kind of mistake here.
I see that add_msg does not use anything useful from latest_new, so
with the current state of the code, it does not make that much
difference (except that it says "from commit '$latest_new'", and by
peeling, the fact that the user wanted to use a tag is lost from the
result).
> On a side note, if merging a tag without --squash, git merge recognises
> that it's a tag and adds a note to the merge commit body. It may be
> worth mimicking this when using "subtree merge --squash" or
> "subtree add".
Yes, and this change makes such a change harder to implement on top,
I suspect.
Would it be sufficient to do
git commit-tree $tree $headp -p "$rev^0"
in that "not squashing" codepath instead?
> contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> index dc59a91..9453dae 100755
> --- a/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> +++ b/contrib/subtree/git-subtree.sh
> @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ cmd_add_commit()
> {
> revs=$(git rev-parse $default --revs-only "$@") || exit $?
> set -- $revs
> - rev="$1"
> + rev=$(peel_committish "$1")
>
> debug "Adding $dir as '$rev'..."
> git read-tree --prefix="$dir" $rev || exit $?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-08 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-08 1:04 [PATCH] contrib/subtree bugfix: Can't `add` annotated tag James Denholm
2014-05-08 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-05-09 7:36 ` James Denholm
2014-05-12 7:29 ` James Denholm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqoaz841d3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=kcagle@micron$(echo .)com \
--cc=nod.helm@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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