On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 07:40:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 07:23:58PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > +core.alternateRefsCommand::
> > + When advertising tips of available history from an alternate, use the shell to
> > + execute the specified command instead of linkgit:git-for-each-ref[1]. The
> > + first argument is the absolute path of the alternate. Output must contain one
> > + hex object id per line (i.e., the same as produce by `git for-each-ref
> > + --format='%(objectname)'`).
> > ++
> > +This is useful when a repository only wishes to advertise some of its
> > +alternate's references as `.have`'s. For example, to only advertise branch
> > +heads, configure `core.alternateRefsCommand` to the path of a script which runs
> > +`git --git-dir="$1" for-each-ref --format='%(objectname)' refs/heads`.
> > ++
> > +Note that the configured value is executed in a shell, and thus
> > +linkgit:git-for-each-ref[1] by itself does not work, as scripts have to handle
> > +the path argument specially.
>
> This last paragraph is trying to fix the wrong-impression that we
> discussed in the last round. But I'm not sure it doesn't make things
> more confusing. ;)
Heh, point taken. I suppose that I won't try to ignore your feedback
here!
> Specifically, the problem isn't the shell. The issue is that we pass the
> repo path as an argument to the command. So either:
>
> - it's a real command that we run, in which case git-for-each-ref does
> not take a repo path argument and so doesn't work; or
>
> - it's a shell snippet, in which case the argument is appended to the
> snippet (and here's where you can get into a rabbit hole of
> explaining how our shell invocation works, and we should avoid that)
>
> Can we just say:
>
> Note that you cannot generally put `git for-each-ref` directly into
> the config value, as it does not take a repository path as an argument
> (but you can wrap the command above in a shell script).
>
> > [...]
Yeah, I think that this is certainly the way to go. I took your
suggestion as-is, which I think is much clearer than what I wrote.
Thanks!
> The rest of the patch looks good to me, along with the other three
> (modulo the "expect" fixup you already sent).
Thanks for your review, as always :-). I certainly appreciate your
patience with the word-smithing and whatnot.
Junio, I applied Peff's suggestion directly into my local copy, so I'm
happy to do either of a couple things, depending on which would be
easiest for you to pick up. I could either:
1. Re-send this patch (in addition to 4/4), or
2. Re-roll the entire series (with this and 4/4 amended to reflect the
two bits of feedback I've gotten since sending v4).
I imagine that the later will be easier for you to deal with, instead of
manually picking up patch amendments, but if you'd like fewer email,
that works too :-).
Thanks,
Taylor
