Suppose a fetch or push is requested between two shallow repositories
(with no history deepening or shortening). A pack that contains
necessary objects is transferred over together with .git/shallow of
the sender. The receiver has to determine whether it needs to update
.git/shallow if new refs needs new shallow comits.
The rule here is avoid updating .git/shallow by default. But we don't
want to waste the received pack. If the pack contains two refs, one
needs new shallow commits installed in .git/shallow and one does not,
we keep the latter and reject/warn about the former.
Even if .git/shallow update is allowed, we only add shallow commits
strictly necessary for the former ref (remember the sender can send
more shallow commits than necessary) and pay attention not to
accidentally cut the receiver history short (no history shortening is
asked for)
So the steps to figure out what ref need what new shallow commits are:
1. Split the sender shallow commit list into "ours" and "theirs" list
by has_sha1_file. Those that exist in current repo in "ours", the
remaining in "theirs".
2. Check the receiver .git/shallow, remove from "ours" the ones that
also exist in .git/shallow.
3. Fetch the new pack. Either install or unpack it.
4. Do has_sha1_file on "theirs" list again. Drop the ones that fail
has_sha1_file. Obviously the new pack does not need them.
5. If the pack is kept, remove from "ours" the ones that do not exist
in the new pack.
6. Walk the new refs to answer the question "what shallow commits,
both ours and theirs, are required in .git/shallow in order to add
this ref?". Shallow commits not associated to any refs are removed
from their respective list.
7. (*) Check reachability (from the current refs) of all remaining
commits in "ours". Those reachable are removed. We do not want to
cut any part of our (reachable) history. We only check up
commits. True reachability test is done by
check_everything_connected() at the end as usual.
8. Combine the final "ours" and "theirs" and add them all to
.git/shallow. Install new refs. The case where some hook rejects
some refs on a push is explained in more detail in the push
patches.
Of these steps, #6 and #7 are expensive. Both require walking through
some commits, or in the worst case all commits. And we rather avoid
them in at least common case, where the transferred pack does not
contain any shallow commits that the sender advertises. Let's look at
each scenario:
1) the sender has longer history than the receiver
All shallow commits from the sender will be put into "theirs" list
at step 1 because none of them exists in current repo. In the
common case, "theirs" becomes empty at step 4 and exit early.
2) the sender has shorter history than the receiver
All shallow commits from the sender are likely in "ours" list at
step 1. In the common case, if the new pack is kept, we could empty
"ours" and exit early at step 5.
If the pack is not kept, we hit the expensive step 6 then exit
after "ours" is emptied. There'll be only a handful of objects to
walk in fast-forward case. If it's forced update, we may need to
walk to the bottom.
3) the sender has same .git/shallow as the receiver
This is similar to case 2 except that "ours" should be emptied at
step 2 and exit early.
A fetch after "clone --depth=X" is case 1. A fetch after "clone" (from
a shallow repo) is case 3. Luckily they're cheap for the common case.
A push from "clone --depth=X" falls into case 2, which is expensive.
Some more work may be done at the sender/client side to avoid more
work on the server side: if the transferred pack does not contain any
shallow commits, send-pack should not send any shallow commits to the
receive-pack, effectively turning it into a normal push and avoid all
steps.
This patch implements all steps except #3, already handled by
fetch-pack and receive-pack, #6 and #7, which has their own patch due
to their size.
(*) in previous versions step 7 was put before step 3. I reorder it so
that the common case that keeps the pack does not need to walk
commits at all. In future if we implement faster commit
reachability check (maybe with the help of pack bitmaps or commit
cache), step 7 could become cheap and be moved up before 6 again.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Git - the stupid content tracker
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"git" can mean anything, depending on your mood.
- random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not
actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a
mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant.
- stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the
dictionary of slang.
- "global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actually
works for you. Angels sing, and a light suddenly fills the room.
- "goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an
unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations
and full access to internals.
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus
Torvalds with help of a group of hackers around the net.
Please read the file INSTALL for installation instructions.
See Documentation/gittutorial.txt to get started, then see
Documentation/everyday.txt for a useful minimum set of commands, and
Documentation/git-commandname.txt for documentation of each command.
If git has been correctly installed, then the tutorial can also be
read with "man gittutorial" or "git help tutorial", and the
documentation of each command with "man git-commandname" or "git help
commandname".
CVS users may also want to read Documentation/gitcvs-migration.txt
("man gitcvs-migration" or "git help cvs-migration" if git is
installed).
Many Git online resources are accessible from http://git-scm.com/
including full documentation and Git related tools.
The user discussion and development of Git take place on the Git
mailing list -- everyone is welcome to post bug reports, feature
requests, comments and patches to git@vger.kernel.org (read
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for instructions on patch submission).
To subscribe to the list, send an email with just "subscribe git" in
the body to majordomo@vger.kernel.org. The mailing list archives are
available at http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/,
http://marc.info/?l=git and other archival sites.
The maintainer frequently sends the "What's cooking" reports that
list the current status of various development topics to the mailing
list. The discussion following them give a good reference for
project status, development direction and remaining tasks.
58babfffde