> Just to make sure. Was it tested with AND WITHOUT the new colon
> feature? I am asking how likely is there a regression.
Yes. But my Arch repositories do not have colons in the name (I mean I tested on real-world repositories and not weird ones created exactly to make the patch fail).
>> -my %arch_branches = map { $_ => 1 } @ARGV;
>> +my %arch_branches = map { my $branch = $_; $branch =~ s/:.*//; $branch => 1 } @ARGV;
In fact, I was too headlong on your suggestion. I should have noticed that this substitution must be changed to
$branch =~ s/:[^:]*$//
I just realized, however, that branches with colons in the names would have failed before my patch too, because git would have failed creating a branch with a colon in it. So this is not a regression, strictly speaking.
> Strictly speaking (-e "$git_dir/refs/heads/$branch") test would
> not work if the repository was pack-ref'ed with --all option.
> Run "git show-ref -q --verify refs/heads/$branch" and check its
> exit status, or run it without -q and read its output.
Unfortunately this is pervasive in git-archimport. I can fix it, but I think it belongs in a separate patch.
> With the original code, a tag "t--a/g" was mapped to "t--a,g" in
> the else clause, but the new code yields git_branchname("t--a/g")
> followed by '--' followed by "g", which would evaluate to I do
> not know what exactly, but I am sure it would not evaluate to
> "t--a,g". Would it be a non-issue? As archimport seems to support
> incremental import, I suspect it might upset existing users.
In this case, this input will always be of the form t--a/g--REVISION.
So the old one would change to t--a,g--REVISION; the new one would
strip to t--a/g and convert it to t--a,g (using git_default_branchname)
and file tack --REVISION at the end again.
I will shortly send an updated patch
Paolo
-
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