2018-01-18 9:20 GMT+03:00 Оля Тележная <olyatelezhnaya@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2018-01-18 1:39 GMT+03:00 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:55:22AM +0300, Оля Тележная wrote: >>> >>>> > IOW, the progression I'd expect in a series like this is: >>>> > >>>> > 1. Teach ref-filter.c to support everything that cat-file can do. >>>> > >>>> > 2. Convert cat-file to use ref-filter.c. >>>> >>>> I agree, I even made this and it's working fine: >>>> https://github.com/git/git/pull/450/commits/1b74f1047f07434dccb207534d1ad45a143e3f2b >> >> (Nit: it looks like the above link does not work any more, but it >> seems that you are talking about the last patch on the catfile >> branch.) >> >>>> But I decided not to add that to patch because I expand the >>>> functionality of several commands (not only cat-file and >>>> for-each-ref), and I need to support all new functionality in a proper >>>> way, make these error messages, test everything and - the hardest one >>>> - support many new commands for cat-file. As I understand, it is not >>>> possible unless we finally move to ref-filter and print results also >>>> there. Oh, and I also need to rewrite docs in that case. And I decided >>>> to apply this in another patch. But, please, say your opinion, maybe >>>> we could do that here in some way. >>> >>> Yeah, I agree that it will cause changes to other users of ref-filter, >>> and you'd need to deal with documentation and tests there. But I think >>> we're going to have to do those things eventually (since supporting >>> those extra fields everywhere is part of the point of the project). And >>> by doing them now, I think it can make the transition for cat-file a lot >>> simpler, because we never have to puzzle over this intermediate state >>> where only some of the atoms are valid for cat-file. >> >> I agree that you will have to deal with documentation and tests at one >> point and that it could be a good idea to do that now. >> >> I wonder if it is possible to add atoms one by one into ref-filter and >> to add tests and documentation at the same time, instead of merging >> cat-file atoms with ref-filter atoms in one big step. >> >> When all the cat-file atoms have been added to ref-filter's >> valid_atom, maybe you could add ref-filter's atoms to cat-file's >> valid_cat_file_atom one by one and add tests and documentation at the >> same time. >> >> And then when ref-filter's valid_atom and cat-file's >> valid_cat_file_atom are identical you can remove cat-file's >> valid_cat_file_atom and maybe after that rename "ref-filter" to >> "format". > > I think it's important to finish migrating process at first. I mean, > now we are preparing and collecting everything in ref-filter, but we > make resulting string and print still in cat-file. And I am not sure, > but maybe it will not be possible to start using new atoms in cat-file > while some part of logic still differs. I tried to make that part here: https://github.com/telezhnaya/git/commit/19a148614f1d4db1f8e628eb4e6d7c819d2da875 I know that the code is disgusting and there is a memory leak :) I just try to reuse ref-filter logic, I will cleanup everything later. At first, I try to make it work. The problem is that I have segfault, and if I use gdb, I get: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () I tried to google it, it's my first time when I get that strange message, and unfortunately find nothing. So please explain me the reason, why I can't find a place of segfault that way. Thanks! > And another thoughts here - we were thinking about creating format.h > but decided not to move forward with it, and now we are suffering > because of it. Can I create it right now or the history of commits > would be too dirty because of it? Also, do you mean just renaming of > ref-filter? I was thinking that I need to put formatting-related logic > to another file and leave all other stuff in ref-filter. By the way, I can create format.h in absolutely another branch, we could merge it, and I will deal with all merge conflicts with my current work. It sounds tediously, but actually it's not such a big problem, I can do that. But I still need to fully understand, what do you find more proper - just rename ref-filter, or create new file and move formatting-related logic. > > Anyway, your suggested steps looks good, and I am planning to > implement them later. Let's discuss, what behavior we are waiting for > when atom seems useless for the command. Die or ignore? And, which > atoms are useless (as I understand, "rest" and "deltabase" from > cat-file are useless for all ref-filter users, so the question is > about - am I right in it, and about ref-filter atoms for cat-file). > > I have never written any tests and docs for Git, I will try to explore > by myself how to do that, but if you have any special links/materials > about it - please send them to me :) > > Olga
