kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jeff King	99094a7ad4	t: fix trivial &&-chain breakage These are tests which are missing a link in their &&-chain, but during a setup phase. We may fail to notice failure in commands that build the test environment, but these are typically not expected to fail at all (but it's still good to double-check that our test environment is what we expect). Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	10 years ago
Kevin Daudt	f88851c637	rev-list: refuse --first-parent combined with --bisect rev-list --bisect is used by git bisect, but never together with --first-parent. Because rev-list --bisect together with --first-parent is not handled currently, and even leads to segfaults, refuse to use both options together. Because this is not supported, it makes little sense to use git log --bisect --first parent either, because refs/heads/bad is not limited to the first parent chain. Helped-by: Junio C. Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> Signed-off-by: Kevin Daudt <me@ikke.info> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	10 years ago
Jeff King	4fe10219bc	rev-list: add --indexed-objects option There is currently no easy way to ask the revision traversal machinery to include objects reachable from the index (e.g., blobs and trees that have not yet been committed). This patch adds an option to do so. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	10 years ago
Junio C Hamano	a74352867e	revision: propagate flag bits from tags to pointees With the previous fix `895c5ba3` (revision: do not peel tags used in range notation, 2013-09-19), handle_revision_arg() that processes command line arguments for the "git log" family of commands no longer directly places the object pointed by the tag in the pending object array when it sees a tag object. We used to place pointee there after copying the flag bits like UNINTERESTING and SYMMETRIC_LEFT. This change meant that any flag that is relevant to later history traversal must now be propagated to the pointed objects (most often these are commits) while starting the traversal, which is partly done by handle_commit() that is called from prepare_revision_walk(). We did propagate UNINTERESTING, but did not do so for others, most notably SYMMETRIC_LEFT. This caused "git log --left-right v1.0..." (where "v1.0" is a tag) to start losing the "leftness" from the commit the tag points at. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Junio C Hamano	2ac5e4470b	revision: mark contents of an uninteresting tree uninteresting "git rev-list --objects ^A^{tree} B^{tree}" ought to mean "I want a list of objects inside B's tree, but please exclude the objects that appear inside A's tree". we see the top-level tree marked as uninteresting (i.e. ^A^{tree} in the above example) and call mark_tree_uninteresting() on it; this unfortunately prevents us from recursing into the tree and marking the objects in the tree as uninteresting. The reason why "git log ^A A" yields an empty set of commits, i.e. we do not have a similar issue for commits, is because we call mark_parents_uninteresting() after seeing an uninteresting commit. The uninteresting-ness of the commit itself does not prevent its parents from being marked as uninteresting. Introduce mark_tree_contents_uninteresting() and structure the code in handle_commit() in such a way that it makes it the responsibility of the callchain leading to this function to mark commits, trees and blobs as uninteresting, and also make it the responsibility of the helpers called from this function to mark objects that are reachable from them. Note that this is a very old bug that probably dates back to the day when "rev-list --objects" was introduced. The line to clear tree->object.parsed at the end of mark_tree_contents_uninteresting() can be removed when this fix is merged to the codebase after `6e454b9a` (clear parsed flag when we free tree buffers, 2013-06-05). Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	11 years ago
Junio C Hamano	895c5ba3c1	revision: do not peel tags used in range notation A range notation "A..B" means exactly the same thing as what "^A B" means, i.e. the set of commits that are reachable from B but not from A. But the internal representation after the revision parser parsed these two notations are subtly different. - "rev-list ^A B" leaves A and B in the revs->pending.objects[] array, with the former marked as UNINTERESTING and the revision traversal machinery propagates the mark to underlying commit objects A^0 and B^0. - "rev-list A..B" peels tags and leaves A^0 (marked as UNINTERESTING) and B^0 in revs->pending.objects[] array before the traversal machinery kicks in. This difference usually does not matter, but starts to matter when the --objects option is used. For example, we see this: $ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4^1..v1.8.4 \| grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4) $ git rev-list --objects v1.8.4 ^v1.8.4^1 \| grep $(git rev-parse v1.8.4) `04f013dc38` v1.8.4 With the former invocation, the revision traversal machinery never hears about the tag v1.8.4 (it only sees the result of peeling it, i.e. the commit v1.8.4^0), and the tag itself does not appear in the output. The latter does send the tag object itself to the output. Make the range notation keep the unpeeled objects and feed them to the traversal machinery to fix this inconsistency. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	12 years ago
Elijah Newren	a97a96fc96	Add testcases showing how pathspecs are handled with rev-list --objects Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>	14 years ago