On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:31:38AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:04:10PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > > Well, you also need to pass the path so it knows which repo to look at.
> > > Which I think is the primary reason we do it, but behaving differently
> > > for each alternate is another option.
> >
> > Yeah. I think that the clearer argument is yours, so I'll amend my copy.
> > I am thinking of:
> >
> > To find the alternate, pass its absolute path as the first argument.
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > > > +heads, configure `core.alternateRefsCommand` to the path of a script which runs
> > > > +`git --git-dir="$1" for-each-ref --format='%(objectname)' refs/heads`.
> > >
> > > Does that script actually work? Because of the way we invoke shell
> > > commands with arguments, I think we'd end up with:
> > >
> > > git --git-dir="$1" for-each-ref --format='%(objectname)' refs/heads "$@"
> > [...]
> > ...but this was what I was trying to get across with saying "...to the
> > path of a script which runs...", such that we would get the implicit
> > scoping that you make explicit in your example with "f() { ... }; f".
> >
> > Does that seem OK as-is after the additional context? I think that after
> > reading your response, it seems to be confusing, so perhaps it should be
> > changed...
>
> Ah, OK. I totally missed that "path of a script" part. What you have is
> correct, then, but I do wonder if we could make it less subtle.
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> For example, if `/path/to/script` runs `git --git-dir="$1"
> for-each-ref --format='%(objectname)' refs/heads/`, then putting
> `/path/to/script` in `core.alternateRefsCommand` will show only the
> branch heads from the alternate.
>
> I dunno. It's certainly clunkier. I wonder if we would be less awkward
> to show the sample script in a fenced block, with the `#!/bin/sh` and
> everything.
>
> Or maybe just keep the text you have and add a note at the end like:
>
> Note that writing that `for-each-ref` command directly in the config
> option doesn't quite work, as it has to handle the path argument
> specially.
>
> I don't think we need to hand-hold a user through the f() shell-snippet
> trickery. I just don't want somebody thinking they can blindly paste
> that into their config.
Yeah, I agree with your later suggestion, and I'm glad that we're on the
same page. I certianly don't think that we need to do an extra amount of
hand holding through the 'f() { ... }; f' pattern, but I added an extra
bit to say that 'git for-each-ref' by itself doesn't work, since you
have to handle the path argument.
> > > The other alternative is to pass $GIT_DIR in the environment on behalf
> > > of the program. Then writing:
> > >
> > > git for-each-ref --format='%(objectname)' refs/heads
> > >
> > > would Just Work. But it's a bit subtle, since it is not immediately
> > > obvious that the command is meant to run in a different repository.
> >
> > I think that we discussed this approach a bit off-list, and I had the
> > idea that it was too fragile to work in practice, and that it would be
> > too surprising for callers to suddenly be in a different world.
> >
> > I say this not because it wouldn't make this particular scenario more
> > convenient, which it uncountably would, but because it would make other
> > scenarios _more_ complicated.
> >
> > For example, if a caller uses an alternate reference backed, perhaps,
> > MySQL (or anything that _isn't_ Git), they're not going to want to have
> > these GIT_ environment variable set.
>
> If they're not using Git under the hood, then GIT_* probably isn't
> hurting anything. But it is still pretty subtle. Let's forget I
> mentioned it. Just chaining for-each-ref with a prefix is pretty
> awkward, but that's why we have the next patch with
> alternateRefsPrefixes.
>
> Your response did make me think of one other thing, though. The
> alternate file points to a directory with objects, and the
> for_each_alternate_ref() code checks to see if that looks vaguely like
> the objects/ directory of a git repo. But would anybody want to run
> something like alternateRefsCommand on _just_ the object directory?
> I.e., you don't have a real git repo there, but your script can
> "somehow" come up with a list of valid tips.
>
> That isn't inconceivable to me for the kind of multi-fork storage we do
> at GitHub. E.g., imagine a shared object directory with no refs, and
> then a script that goes out to the other related forks to look at their
> ref tips. I don't think we have any immediate plans for it, though (and
> there are a lot of subtle bits that I won't go into here that make it
> non-trivial). So I'm OK to punt on it for now. I also think in a pinch
> that you could easily fool the alternates code by just having a dummy
> "refs/" directory.
I'm not opposed to the idea in general, and I think that it's a good
one, but I am opposed to it in this series. I think that the series
as-is is concise, and unlocks a path towards implementing this feature
at GitHub, and for other users, too.
Certainly we can invent more complicated examples, and I think that many
of them (yours included) are worth building the extra support for. But
in this initial version, I think that we'd be fine to leave it off.
> > > > diff --git a/t/t5410-receive-pack.sh b/t/t5410-receive-pack.sh
> > [...]
> > > > +test_description='git receive-pack test'
> > >
> > > The name of this test file and the description are pretty vague. Can we
> > > say something like "test handling of receive-pack with alternate-refs
> > > config"?
> >
> > I left it intentionally vague, since I'd like for it to contain more
> > tests about 'git receive-pack'-specific things in the future.
> >
> > I'm happy to change the name, though I wonder if we should change the
> > filename accordingly, and if so, to what.
>
> I think we'd want to have a separate script for other receive-pack tests
> that aren't related to alternates. There's some startup overhead to each
> script so we don't want to make them _too_ small, but there are benefits
> to having small test scripts:
>
> - they're our unit of parallelism, so we want to be able to keep a
> reasonable number of processors full
>
> - each test script starts with a clean slate, so there's less chance
> for unexpected interactions between individual tests (e.g., when
> modifying or adding a test in the middle of the script)
>
> - it's less annoying when you're debugging a failing test near the end
> of a script ;)
All good points, so I'm convinced ;-).
> I actually think we'd benefit from splitting up a few of the longer
> scripts. On my quad-core laptop, running the tests in slow-to-fast order
> keeps the processors pretty busy, and the slowest test takes less time
> than the whole suite. But I've also tried running on a 40-core box. It
> burns through the short tests quickly, but you can never get faster than
> the slowest single test, which takes something like 35 seconds. So
> instead of being 10 times faster, it's more like two times faster, as
> most of the processors idle waiting for that one script to finish.
>
> But that's all pretty tangential here. My point is just that this
> probably ought to be remain its own script. :)
>
> I'd probably name it "t5410-receive-pack-alternates" or similar.
Sounds good, I'll do that and update the name of the test to be
'receive-pack with alternate ref filtering'.
> > I'll wait until Monday to re-roll, just to make sure that there isn't
> > any new feedback between now and then.
>
> Sounds good. Thanks for working on this.
It's been my pleasure. Thanks for all of your help.
Thanks,
Taylor
