Also change UK english "behaviour" to US english "behavior".
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It seems that people around here are all happy with the updated
heuristics used to decide where the hunks are separated. Let's keep
that as the default. Even though we do not expect too much trouble
from the difference between the old and the new algorithms, just in
case let's leave the implementation of the knobs to turn it off for
emergencies. There is no longer need for documenting them, though.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It can be tempting for a server admin to want a stable set of
long-lived packs for dumb clients; but also want to enable bitmaps
to serve smart clients more quickly.
Unfortunately, such a configuration is impossible; so at least warn
users of this incompatibility since commit 21134714 (pack-objects:
turn off bitmaps when we split packs, 2014-10-16).
Tested the warning by inspecting the output of:
make -C t t5310-pack-bitmaps.sh GIT_TEST_OPTS=-v
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We introduce a way to send custom HTTP headers with all requests.
This allows us, for example, to send an extra token from build agents
for temporary access to private repositories. (This is the use case that
triggered this patch.)
This feature can be used like this:
git -c http.extraheader='Secret: sssh!' fetch $URL $REF
Note that `curl_easy_setopt(..., CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, ...)` takes only
a single list, overriding any previous call. This means we have to
collect _all_ of the headers we want to use into a single list, and
feed it to cURL in one shot. Since we already unconditionally set a
"pragma" header when initializing the curl handles, we can add our new
headers to that list.
For callers which override the default header list (like probe_rpc),
we provide `http_copy_default_headers()` so they can do the same
trick.
Big thanks to Jeff King and Junio Hamano for their outstanding help and
patient reviews.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The possible reasons for exiting are now ordered by the exit code value.
While at it, rewrite the `can not write to the config file` to
`the config file cannot be written` to be grammatically correct and a
proper sentence.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the
depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need to have the possibility
to do all kinds of combinations:
* shallow super project with shallow submodules
e.g. build bots starting always from scratch. They want to transmit
the least amount of network data as well as using the least amount
of space on their hard drive.
* shallow super project with unshallow submodules
e.g. The superproject is just there to track a collection of repositories
and it is not important to have the relationship between the repositories
intact. However the history of the individual submodules matter.
* unshallow super project with shallow submodules
e.g. The superproject is the actual project and the submodule is a
library which is rarely touched.
The new switch to select submodules to be shallow or unshallow supports
all of these three cases.
It is easy to transition from the first to the second case by just
unshallowing the submodules (`git submodule foreach git fetch
--unshallow`), but it is not possible to transition from the second to the
first case (as we would have already transmitted the non shallow over
the network). That is why we want to make the first case the default in
case of a shallow super project. This leads to the inconvenience in the
second case with the shallow super project and unshallow submodules,
as you need to pass `--no-shallow-submodules`.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The previous commit said:
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do
so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others,
because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching
the other project into some location in the working tree of an
existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it
is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option
pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge".
Prepare a patch to make it a reality, just in case it is needed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In order to produce the smallest possible diff and combine several diff
hunks together, we implement a heuristic from GNU Diff which moves diff
hunks forward as far as possible when we find common context above and
below a diff hunk. This sometimes produces less readable diffs when
writing C, Shell, or other programming languages, ie:
...
/*
+ *
+ *
+ */
+
+/*
...
instead of the more readable equivalent of
...
+/*
+ *
+ *
+ */
+
/*
...
Implement the following heuristic to (optionally) produce the desired
output.
If there are diff chunks which can be shifted around, shift each hunk
such that the last common empty line is below the chunk with the rest
of the context above.
This heuristic appears to resolve the above example and several other
common issues without producing significantly weird results. However, as
with any heuristic it is not really known whether this will always be
more optimal. Thus, it can be disabled via diff.compactionHeuristic.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The correct api is trace_printf_key(), not trace_print_key().
Also do not throw a random string at printf(3)-like function;
instead, feed it as a parameter that is fed to a "%s" conversion
specifier.
Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
git-format-patch recognizes -s as shorthand only for --signoff, however,
its documentation shows -s as shorthand for both --signoff and
--no-patch. Resolve this confusion by suppressing the bogus -s shorthand
for --no-patch.
While here, also avoid showing the --no-patch option in git-format-patch
documentation since it doesn't make sense to ask to suppress the patch
while at the same time explicitly asking to format the patch (which,
after all, is the purpose of git-format-patch).
Reported-by: Kevin Brodsky <corax26@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
'git for-each-ref's manpage says that '--contains' only lists tags,
but it lists all kinds of refs.
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the local convention of the project is to use tab width that is
not 8, it may make sense to allow "git log --expand-tabs=<n>" to
tweak the output to match it.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git log --pretty={medium,full,fuller}" and "git log" by default
prepend 4 spaces to the log message, so it makes sense to enable
the new "expand-tabs" facility by default for these formats.
Add --no-expand-tabs option to override the new default.
The change alone breaks a test in t4201 that runs "git shortlog"
on the output from "git log", and expects that the output from
"git log" does not do such a tab expansion. Adjust the test to
explicitly disable expand-tabs with --no-expand-tabs.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A commit log message sometimes tries to line things up using tabs,
assuming fixed-width font with the standard 8-place tab settings.
Viewing such a commit however does not work well in "git log", as
we indent the lines by prefixing 4 spaces in front of them.
This should all line up:
Column 1 Column 2
-------- --------
A B
ABCD EFGH
SPACES Instead of Tabs
Even with multi-byte UTF8 characters:
Column 1 Column 2
-------- --------
Ä B
åäö 100
A Møøse once bit my sister..
Tab-expand the lines in "git log --expand-tabs" output before
prefixing 4 spaces.
This is based on the patch by Linus Torvalds, but at this step, we
require an explicit command line option to enable the behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
By adding this option which defaults to true, we can use the
corresponding --no-checkout to make some customizations before
the checkout, like sparse checkout, etc.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Ray Zhang <zhanglei002@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
OPT_CMDMODE mechanism was introduced in the release of 1.8.5 to actively
notice when multiple "operation mode" options that specify mutually
incompatible operation modes are given.
Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While it makes sense to allow merging unrelated histories of two
projects that started independently into one, in the way "gitk" was
merged to "git" itself aka "the coolest merge ever", such a merge is
still an unusual event. Worse, if somebody creates an independent
history by starting from a tarball of an established project and
sends a pull request to the original project, "git merge" however
happily creates such a merge without any sign of something unusual
is happening.
Teach "git merge" to refuse to create such a merge by default,
unless the user passes a new "--allow-unrelated-histories" option to
tell it that the user is aware that two unrelated projects are
merged.
Because such a "two project merge" is a rare event, a configuration
option to always allow such a merge is not added.
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so
and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such
a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project
into some location in the working tree of an existing project and
making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a
local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to
"git merge". Many tests that are updated by this patch does the
pass-through manually by turning:
git pull something
into its equivalent:
git fetch something &&
git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
If somebody is inclined to add such an option, updated tests in this
change need to be adjusted back to:
git pull --allow-unrelated-histories something
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Noticed-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The `tag.forcesignannotated` configuration variable makes "git tag"
that would implicitly create an annotated tag to instead create a
signed tag. For example
$ git tag -m "This is a message" tag-with-message
$ git tag -F message-file tag-with-message
would create a signed tag if the configuration variable is in
effect. To override this from the command line, the user can
explicitly ask for an annotated tag, like so:
$ git tag -a -m "This is a message" tag-with-message
$ git tag -a -F message-file tag-with-message
Creation of a light-weight tag, i.e.
$ git tag lightweight
is not affected.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Arnoud <laurent@spkdev.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If rebase.autoStash configuration variable is set, there is no way to
override it for "git pull --rebase" from the command line.
Teach "git pull --rebase" the --[no-]autostash command line flag which
overrides the current value of rebase.autoStash, if set. As "git rebase"
understands the --[no-]autostash option, it's just a matter of passing
the option to underlying "git rebase" when "git pull --rebase" is called.
Helped-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Paul Tan <pyokagan@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the later steps of preparing a patch series I do not want to
edit or reorder the patches any more, but just make sure the
test suite passes after each patch and also to fix breakage
right there if some of the steps fail. I could run
EDITOR=true git rebase -i <anchor> -x "make test"
but it would be simpler if it can be spelled like so:
git rebase <anchor> -x "make test"
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Junio C Hamano