Hi,
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Now, by saying "git fetch -depth <n> <repo>" you can deepen
> > a shallow repository.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > commit.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > commit.h | 3 ++-
> > fetch-pack.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> > git-fetch.sh | 12 +++++++++++-
> > shallow.c | 8 ++++++--
> > upload-pack.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > diff --git a/upload-pack.c b/upload-pack.c
> > index ebe1e5a..162dd34 100644
> > --- a/upload-pack.c
> > +++ b/upload-pack.c
> > @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ static void create_pack_file(void)
> > } else {
> > for (i = 0; i < want_obj.nr; i++) {
> > struct object *o = want_obj.objects[i].item;
> > + o->flags &= ~UNINTERESTING;
> > add_pending_object(&revs, o, NULL);
> > }
> > for (i = 0; i < have_obj.nr; i++) {
>
> I am puzzled why this is needed in this series. In other words,
> do we have a bug in the current upload-pack that does not have
> shallow already by not clearing UNINTERESTING bit? In yet other
> words, I haven't figured out which part of the shallow series
> makes it necessary to clear UNINTERESTING bit from wanted
> object.
IIRC (has been a long time, hasn't it?) the test failed without that line,
and I was too lazy to investigate why. But ICRI ;-)
> > @@ -547,23 +554,51 @@ static void receive_needs(void)
> >...
> > + for (i = 0; i < shallows.nr; i++) {
> > + struct object *object = shallows.objects[i].item;
> > + if (object->flags & NOT_SHALLOW) {
> > + struct commit_list *parents;
> > + packet_write(1, "unshallow %s",
> > + sha1_to_hex(object->sha1));
> > + object->flags &= ~CLIENT_SHALLOW;
> > + /* make sure the real parents are parsed */
> > + unregister_shallow(object->sha1);
> > + parse_commit((struct commit *)object);
> > + parents = ((struct commit *)object)->parents;
> > + while (parents) {
> > + add_object_array(&parents->item->object,
> > + NULL, &want_obj);
> > + parents = parents->next;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I doubt unregister_shallow() is enough to ensure that the next
> parse_commit() re-parses to recover its parents. parse_commit()
> says "if (item->object.parsed) return 0" upfront. Don't you
> need to do:
>
> object->parsed = 0;
>
> before parse_commit()?
Yes. Somehow, an important part of unregister_shallow() went missing (yet
another proof that my poor-man's-StGit does not always work). I think that
the "object->parsed = 0;" should go into unregister_shallow() like this:
diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index d5103cd..4451376 100644
--- a/commit.c
+++ b/commit.c
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ int write_shallow_commits(int fd, int us
int unregister_shallow(const unsigned char *sha1)
{
int pos = commit_graft_pos(sha1);
+ struct commit *commit = lookup_commit(sha1);
if (pos < 0)
return -1;
if (pos + 1 < commit_graft_nr)
@@ -265,6 +266,8 @@ int unregister_shallow(const unsigned ch
sizeof(struct commit_graft *)
* (commit_graft_nr - pos - 1));
commit_graft_nr--;
+ if (commit)
+ commit->object.parsed = 0;
return 0;
}
Ciao,
Dscho
-
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