Skip to content

G
git

李少辉-开发者 / git
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 2
Star 1
Fork 0
G
git

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 02 3月, 2018 1 次提交
    • M
      write_locked_index(): add flag to avoid writing unchanged index · 61000814
      由 Martin Ågren 提交于 
      We have several callers like

	if (active_cache_changed && write_locked_index(...))
		handle_error();
	rollback_lock_file(...);

where the final rollback is needed because "!active_cache_changed"
shortcuts the if-expression. There are also a few variants of this,
including some if-else constructs that make it more clear when the
explicit rollback is really needed.

Teach `write_locked_index()` to take a new flag SKIP_IF_UNCHANGED and
simplify the callers. Leave the most complicated of the callers (in
builtin/update-index.c) unchanged. Rewriting it to use this new flag
would end up duplicating logic.

We could have made the new flag behave the other way round
("FORCE_WRITE"), but that could break existing users behind their backs.
Let's take the more conservative approach. We can still migrate existing
callers to use our new flag. Later we might even be able to flip the
default, possibly without entirely ignoring the risk to in-flight or
out-of-tree topics.
Suggested-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NMartin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      61000814
  3. 13 12月, 2017 1 次提交
  5. 04 8月, 2017 1 次提交
  7. 03 8月, 2017 1 次提交
  9. 16 6月, 2017 1 次提交
  11. 30 5月, 2017 1 次提交
  13. 12 5月, 2017 1 次提交
  15. 14 2月, 2017 1 次提交
  17. 28 12月, 2016 2 次提交
    • S
      rm: absorb a submodules git dir before deletion · 55856a35
      由 Stefan Beller 提交于 
      When deleting a submodule, we need to keep the actual git directory around,
such that we do not lose local changes in there and at a later checkout
of the submodule we don't need to clone it again.

Now that the functionality is available to absorb the git directory of a
submodule, rewrite the checking in git-rm to not complain, but rather
relocate the git directories inside the superproject.

An alternative solution was discussed to have a function
`depopulate_submodule`. That would couple the check for its git directory
and possible relocation before the the removal, such that it is less
likely to miss the check in the future.  But the indirection with such
a function added seemed also complex. The reason for that was that this
possible move of the git directory was also implemented in
`ok_to_remove_submodule`, such that this function could truthfully
answer whether it is ok to remove the submodule.

The solution proposed here defers all these checks to the caller.
Signed-off-by: NStefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      55856a35
    • S
      submodule: rename and add flags to ok_to_remove_submodule · 83b76966
      由 Stefan Beller 提交于 
      In different contexts the question "Is it ok to delete a submodule?"
may be answered differently.

In 293ab15e (submodule: teach rm to remove submodules unless they
contain a git directory, 2012-09-26) a case was made that we can safely
ignore ignored untracked files for removal as we explicitely ask for the
removal of the submodule.

In a later patch we want to remove submodules even when the user doesn't
explicitly ask for it (e.g. checking out a tree-ish in which the submodule
doesn't exist).  In that case we want to be more careful when it comes
to deletion of untracked files. As of this patch it is unclear how this
will be implemented exactly, so we'll offer flags in which the caller
can specify how the different untracked files ought to be handled.

As the flags allow the function to not die on an error when spawning
a child process, we need to find an appropriate return code for the
case when the child process could not be started. As in that case we
cannot tell if the submodule is ok to remove, we'd want to return 'false'.

As only 0 is understood as false, rename the function to invert the
meaning, i.e. the return code of 0 signals the removal of the submodule
is fine, and other values can be used to return a more precise answer
what went wrong.
Signed-off-by: NStefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      83b76966
  19. 08 12月, 2016 1 次提交
    • J
      hold_locked_index(): align error handling with hold_lockfile_for_update() · b3e83cc7
      由 Junio C Hamano 提交于 
      Callers of the hold_locked_index() function pass 0 when they want to
prepare to write a new version of the index file without wishing to
die or emit an error message when the request fails (e.g. somebody
else already held the lock), and pass 1 when they want the call to
die upon failure.

This option is called LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR by the underlying lockfile
API, and the hold_locked_index() function translates the paramter to
LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR when calling the hold_lock_file_for_update().

Replace these hardcoded '1' with LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR and stop
translating.  Callers other than the ones that are replaced with
this change pass '0' to the function; no behaviour change is
intended with this patch.
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---

Among the callers of hold_locked_index() that passes 0:

 - diff.c::refresh_index_quietly() at the end of "git diff" is an
   opportunistic update; it leaks the lockfile structure but it is
   just before the program exits and nobody should care.

 - builtin/describe.c::cmd_describe(),
   builtin/commit.c::cmd_status(),
   sequencer.c::read_and_refresh_cache() are all opportunistic
   updates and they are OK.

 - builtin/update-index.c::cmd_update_index() takes a lock upfront
   but we may end up not needing to update the index (i.e. the
   entries may be fully up-to-date), in which case we do not need to
   issue an error upon failure to acquire the lock.  We do diagnose
   and die if we indeed need to update, so it is OK.

 - wt-status.c::require_clean_work_tree() IS BUGGY.  It asks
   silence, does not check the returned value.  Compare with
   callsites like cmd_describe() and cmd_status() to notice that it
   is wrong to call update_index_if_able() unconditionally.
      b3e83cc7
  21. 08 9月, 2016 2 次提交
  23. 13 7月, 2016 1 次提交
  25. 10 5月, 2016 1 次提交
  27. 13 4月, 2016 1 次提交
  29. 07 9月, 2015 1 次提交
  31. 21 5月, 2015 1 次提交
  33. 15 1月, 2015 1 次提交
  35. 02 10月, 2014 1 次提交
  37. 03 9月, 2014 1 次提交
  39. 14 6月, 2014 1 次提交
  41. 25 2月, 2014 1 次提交
  43. 19 11月, 2013 1 次提交
    • K
      read-cache.c: fix memory leaks caused by removed cache entries · 5699d17e
      由 Karsten Blees 提交于 
      When cache_entry structs are removed from index_state.cache, they are not
properly freed. Freeing those entries wasn't possible before because we
couldn't remove them from index_state.name_hash.

Now that we _do_ remove the entries from name_hash, we can also free them.
Add 'free(cache_entry)' to all call sites of name-hash.c::remove_name_hash
in read-cache.c (we could free() directly in remove_name_hash(), but
name-hash.c isn't concerned with cache_entry allocation at all).

Accessing a cache_entry after removing it from the index is now no longer
allowed, as the memory has been freed. The following functions need minor
fixes (typically by copying ce->name before use):
 - builtin/rm.c::cmd_rm
 - builtin/update-index.c::do_reupdate
 - read-cache.c::read_index_unmerged
 - resolve-undo.c::unmerge_index_entry_at
Signed-off-by: NKarsten Blees <blees@dcon.de>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      5699d17e
  45. 14 9月, 2013 1 次提交
  47. 10 8月, 2013 1 次提交
    • S
      rm: remove unneeded null pointer check · f8aae0b5
      由 Stefan Beller 提交于 
      As of 7612a1ef (2006-06-09 git-rm: honor -n flag.) the variable
'pathspec' seems to be assumed to be never NULL after calling get_pathspec
There was a NULL pointer check after the seen = NULL assignment, which
was removed by that commit. So if pathspec would be NULL now, we'd segfault
in the line accessing the pathspec:
	for (i = 0; pathspec[i] ; i++)

A few lines later, 'pathspec' still cannot be NULL, but that check was
overlooked, hence removing it now.

As the null pointer check was removed, it makes no sense to assign NULL
to seen and 3 lines later another value as there are no conditions in
between.
Signed-off-by: NStefan Beller <stefanbeller@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      f8aae0b5
  49. 07 8月, 2013 1 次提交
    • J
      rm: delete .gitmodules entry of submodules removed from the work tree · 95c16418
      由 Jens Lehmann 提交于 
      Currently using "git rm" on a submodule removes the submodule's work tree
from that of the superproject and the gitlink from the index. But the
submodule's section in .gitmodules is left untouched, which is a leftover
of the now removed submodule and might irritate users (as opposed to the
setting in .git/config, this must stay as a reminder that the user showed
interest in this submodule so it will be repopulated later when an older
commit is checked out).

Let "git rm" help the user by not only removing the submodule from the
work tree but by also removing the "submodule.<submodule name>" section
from the .gitmodules file and stage both. This doesn't happen when the
"--cached" option is used, as it would modify the work tree. This also
silently does nothing when no .gitmodules file is found and only issues a
warning when it doesn't have a section for this submodule. This is because
the user might just use plain gitlinks without the .gitmodules file or has
already removed the section by hand before issuing the "git rm" command
(in which case the warning reminds him that rm would have done that for
him). Only when .gitmodules is found and contains merge conflicts the rm
command will fail and tell the user to resolve the conflict before trying
again.

Also extend the man page to inform the user about this new feature. While
at it promote the submodule sub-section to a chapter as it made not much
sense under "REMOVING FILES THAT HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM THE FILESYSTEM".

In t7610 three uses of "git rm submod" had to be replaced with "git rm
--cached submod" because that test expects .gitmodules and the work tree
to stay untouched. Also in t7400 the tests for the remaining settings in
the .gitmodules file had to be changed to assert that these settings are
missing.
Signed-off-by: NJens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      95c16418
  51. 06 8月, 2013 1 次提交
  53. 26 7月, 2013 1 次提交
  55. 24 7月, 2013 1 次提交
  57. 16 7月, 2013 2 次提交
  59. 10 7月, 2013 1 次提交
    • N
      Convert "struct cache_entry *" to "const ..." wherever possible · 9c5e6c80
      由 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy 提交于 
      I attempted to make index_state->cache[] a "const struct cache_entry **"
to find out how existing entries in index are modified and where. The
question I have is what do we do if we really need to keep track of on-disk
changes in the index. The result is

 - diff-lib.c: setting CE_UPTODATE

 - name-hash.c: setting CE_HASHED

 - preload-index.c, read-cache.c, unpack-trees.c and
   builtin/update-index: obvious

 - entry.c: write_entry() may refresh the checked out entry via
   fill_stat_cache_info(). This causes "non-const struct cache_entry
   *" in builtin/apply.c, builtin/checkout-index.c and
   builtin/checkout.c

 - builtin/ls-files.c: --with-tree changes stagemask and may set
   CE_UPDATE

Of these, write_entry() and its call sites are probably most
interesting because it modifies on-disk info. But this is stat info
and can be retrieved via refresh, at least for porcelain
commands. Other just uses ce_flags for local purposes.

So, keeping track of "dirty" entries is just a matter of setting a
flag in index modification functions exposed by read-cache.c. Except
unpack-trees, the rest of the code base does not do anything funny
behind read-cache's back.

The actual patch is less valueable than the summary above. But if
anyone wants to re-identify the above sites. Applying this patch, then
this:

    diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
    index 430d021..1692891 100644
    --- a/cache.h
    +++ b/cache.h
    @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static inline unsigned int canon_mode(unsigned int mode)
     #define cache_entry_size(len) (offsetof(struct cache_entry,name) + (len) + 1)

     struct index_state {
    -	struct cache_entry **cache;
    +	const struct cache_entry **cache;
     	unsigned int version;
     	unsigned int cache_nr, cache_alloc, cache_changed;
     	struct string_list *resolve_undo;

will help quickly identify them without bogus warnings.
Signed-off-by: NNguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      9c5e6c80
  61. 13 6月, 2013 2 次提交
  63. 05 4月, 2013 1 次提交
    • J
      rm: do not complain about d/f conflicts during deletion · 9a6728d4
      由 Jeff King 提交于 
      If we used to have an index entry "d/f", but "d" has been
replaced by a non-directory entry, the user may still want
to run "git rm" to delete the stale index entry. They could
use "git rm --cached" to just touch the index, but "git rm"
should also work: we explicitly try to handle the case that
the file has already been removed from the working tree.

However, because unlinking "d/f" in this case will not yield
ENOENT, but rather ENOTDIR, we do not notice that the file
is already gone. Instead, we report it as an error.

The simple solution is to treat ENOTDIR in this case exactly
like ENOENT; all we want to know is whether the file is
already gone, and if a leading path is no longer a
directory, then by definition the sub-path is gone.
Reported-by: Njpinheiro <7jpinheiro@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      9a6728d4
  65. 24 11月, 2012 1 次提交
    • J
      Teach rm to remove submodules when given with a trailing '/' · 53e4c5dc
      由 Jens Lehmann 提交于 
      Doing a "git rm submod/" on a submodule results in an error:
	fatal: pathspec 'submod/' did not match any files
This is really inconvenient as e.g. using TAB completion in a shell on a
submodule automatically adds the trailing '/' when it completes the path
of the submodule directory. The user has then to remove the '/' herself to
make a "git rm" succeed. Doing a "git rm -r somedir/" is working fine, so
there is no reason why that shouldn't work for submodules too.

Teach git rm to not error out when a '/' is appended to the path of a
submodule. Achieve this by chopping off trailing slashes from the path
names given if they represent directories. Add tests to make sure that
logic only applies to directories and not to files.
Signed-off-by: NJens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      53e4c5dc
  67. 30 9月, 2012 1 次提交
    • J
      submodule: teach rm to remove submodules unless they contain a git directory · 293ab15e
      由 Jens Lehmann 提交于 
      Currently using "git rm" on a submodule - populated or not - fails with
this error:

	fatal: git rm: '<submodule path>': Is a directory

This made sense in the past as there was no way to remove a submodule
without possibly removing unpushed parts of the submodule's history
contained in its .git directory too, so erroring out here protected the
user from possible loss of data.

But submodules cloned with a recent git version do not contain the .git
directory anymore, they use a gitfile to point to their git directory
which is safely stored inside the superproject's .git directory. The work
tree of these submodules can safely be removed without losing history, so
let's teach git to do so.

Using rm on an unpopulated submodule now removes the empty directory from
the work tree and the gitlink from the index. If the submodule's directory
is missing from the work tree, it will still be removed from the index.

Using rm on a populated submodule using a gitfile will apply the usual
checks for work tree modification adapted to submodules (unless forced).
For a submodule that means that the HEAD is the same as recorded in the
index, no tracked files are modified and no untracked files that aren't
ignored are present in the submodules work tree (ignored files are deemed
expendable and won't stop a submodule's work tree from being removed).
That logic has to be applied in all nested submodules too.

Using rm on a submodule which has its .git directory inside the work trees
top level directory will just error out like it did before to protect the
repository, even when forced. In the future git could either provide a
message informing the user to convert the submodule to use a gitfile or
even attempt to do the conversion itself, but that is not part of this
change.
Signed-off-by: NJens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
      293ab15e
  69. 21 8月, 2012 1 次提交
  71. 10 3月, 2011 1 次提交