Hi,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:01:13PM +0800, Tay Ray Chuan wrote:
>
> > > It seems like this should be checking for REF_STATUS_NONE explicitly
> > > instead of trying to enumerate the reasons we might not have tried to
> > > push. Shouldn't helpers _only_ be pushing REF_STATUS_NONE refs?
> > >
> > > I think right now the two cases are equivalent, since non-ff and
> > > uptodate are the only two states set before the helper is invoked. But
> > > we have discussed in the past (and I still have a patch floating around
> > > for) a REF_STATUS_REWIND which would treat strict rewinds differently
> > > (silently ignoring them instead of making an error). Explicitly checking
> > > REF_STATUS_NONE future-proofs against new states being added.
> >
> > I'm not really sure if this is true (ie. that if status is not non-ff
> > or uptodate, then it is REF_STATUS_NONE), but we could step around this
>
> Well, consider it this way. If it's _not_ REF_STATUS_NONE, then what is
> it, and what does it mean to be overwriting it?
Ok, I'll take your suggestion from your previous email and do this:
@@ -429,8 +429,16 @@ static int push_refs(struct transport *transport,
continue;
}
- ref->status = status;
- ref->remote_status = msg;
+ if (ref->status == REF_STATUS_NONE) {
+ ref->status = status;
+ ref->remote_status = msg;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Earlier, the ref was marked not to be pushed, so ignore what
+ * the remote helper said about the ref.
+ */
+ continue;
+ }
}
strbuf_release(&buf);
return 0;
Going by this principle (only refs with status of none will be pushed),
I think I should also squash the below into patch 3 (refactor ref status
logic for pushing):
@@ -336,11 +336,10 @@ static int push_refs(struct transport *transport,
continue;
switch (ref->status) {
- case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD:
- case REF_STATUS_UPTODATE:
- continue;
+ case REF_STATUS_NONE:
+ ; /* carry on with pushing */
default:
- ; /* do nothing */
+ continue;
}
if (force_all)
> Maybe I am misunderstanding the problem the patch is addressing, but the
> point of these REF_STATUS feels was to act as a small state machine.
> Everything starts as NONE, and then:
>
> - we compare locally against remote refs. We may transition:
> NONE -> UPTODATE
> NONE -> REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD
> NONE -> REJECT_NODELETE
>
> - we send the push list
> NONE -> EXPECTING_REPORT (if the remote supports individual status)
> NONE -> OK (otherwise)
>
> - we get back status responses
> EXPECTING_REPORT -> OK
> EXPECTING_REPORT -> REMOTE_REJECT
>
> I haven't looked closely at the new transport helper code, but I would
> think it should stick more or less to those transitions. The exception
> would be that some transports don't necessarily handle EXPECTING_REPORT
> in the same way, and may transition directly from NONE to
> OK/REMOTE_REJECT.
minor nit: yes, this may differ from transport-to-transport, but
EXPECTING_REPORT is not used at all in the top-level transport (the
level above the helper).
There's also something I'd like to point out for accuracy: it's that
this sequence of transitions occur at two levels, separately: one at
the top-level transport/transport-helper, and another at the helper.
So, for certain non-ff refs (the type this patch series is looking at),
the sequence of state transitions stops and doesn't continue to step 2
in the top-level transport (sending the push list); but separately, in
the helper, the ref goes through another sequence of state transitions.
What this patch touches is the part in the top-level transport that
syncs the ref status between the helper and the top-level transport: do
we take and present to the user what the helper has done, or not?
Regarding this point, I now think that we should ignore the
helper-reported status only if that status is none, and continue
updating the ref status in the top-level transport if the helper did
push successfully/failed, even if we didn't tell it to push:
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static int push_refs(struct transport *transport,
ref->status = status;
ref->remote_status = msg;
- if (ref->status == REF_STATUS_NONE) {
+ if (ref->status == REF_STATUS_NONE && status == REF_STATUS_NONE) {
ref->status = status;
ref->remote_status = msg;
} else {
> So offhand, I would say that your list should also probably include
> REJECT_NODELETE. However, I think that status is just for old servers
> which didn't support the delete-refs protocol extension. So presumably
> that is none of the new helpers, as they all post-date the addition of
> that feature by quite a few years.
You're right, AFAIK, for the smart http protocol; I don't think it
supports NODELETE.
> > by introducing a property, say, ref->should_push, that is set to 1,
> > after all the vetting has been carried out and just before we talk to
> > the server.
>
> I'd rather not introduce new state. The point of the status flag was to
> encapsulate all of that information, and a new state variable just seems
> like introducing extra complexity. If we are not in the NONE state, I
> don't see why we would tell the helper about a ref at all.
Noted.
--
Cheers,
Ray Chuan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html