On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 04:00:34PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > My "rev-list --alternate-refs" patches _do_ use the refnames, since you > > could do something like "--source" that cares about them. But there's > > some awkwardness there, because the names are in a different namespace > > than the rest of the refs. If we were to just say "nope, you do not get > > to see the names of the alternates" then that awkwardness goes away. But > > it also loses some information that could _possibly_ be of use to a > > caller. > > > > Back in that earlier discussion I did not have a strong opinion, but > > here we are cementing that decision into a user-visible interface. So it > > probably makes sense to revisit and decide once and for all. > > Interesting, and thanks for the link to the prior discussion. I think > that I agree mostly with your rationale in [1], which boils down (for > me) to: > > - Other callers (like 'rev-list --alternate-refs') might care about > them. Even if we don't have those patches in Git today, it's worth > keeping their use case(s) in mind. > > - I didn't measure either, but I can't imagine that we're paying a > huge price for this. So, it might be easy enough to keep saying, > "please write output as '%(objectname) SP %(refname)'", even if we > end up throwing out the refname, anyway. TBH, the main advantage to me is that it makes the user-visible interface way simpler. We just say "give us a list of object ids, one per line". I guess the current spec is not too bad, especially given that we can just provide a for-each-ref format that generates it. > > Probably not worth nit-picking process count, but this could done with a > > single "update-ref --stdin". > > Sure, I don't think that 7 `update-ref`'s vs 2 (`cat` + `git update-ref > --stdin`) will make or break the series, but I can happily shorten it as > you suggest ;-). Yeah, in retrospect I should have not have even mentioned it. test_commit() already adds a bunch of extra processes you may or may not care about (e.g., by making tags, or using "git add" when "commit -a" might do). > > > + cat >expect <<-EOF && > > > + $(git rev-parse a) .have > > > + $(git rev-parse c) .have > > > + EOF > > > + printf "0000" | git receive-pack fork | extract_haves >actual && > > > > There's been a push lately to avoid having git on the left-hand side of > > a fork, since we might otherwise miss its exit code (including things Heh, I meant to say "left-hand side of a pipe", but you obviously figured out what I meant. :) -Peff
