On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:26 AM Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hmm. I think the behavior we'd want is something like: > > > > > > # make sure the other side has three refs > > > git branch prune/one HEAD > > > git branch prune/two HEAD > > > git branch prune/three HEAD > > > git push dst.git refs/heads/prune/* > > > > > > # now drop two of ours, which are eligible for pruning > > > git branch -d prune/one > > > git branch -d prune/two > > > > > > # push with pruning, omitting "two" > > > git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two > > > > > > # we should leave "two" but still deleted "one" > > > test_write_lines one three >expect > > > git -C dst.git for-each-ref --format='%(refname:lstrip=3)' refs/heads/prune/ >actual > > > test_cmp expect actual > > > > > > I.e., the negative refspec shrinks the space we're considering pruning. > > > And we'd probably want a similar test for "fetch --prune". > > > > > > I just tried that, though, and got an interesting result. The push > > > actually complains: > > > > > > $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two > > > error: src refspec refs/heads/prune/two does not match any > > > error: failed to push some refs to 'dst.git' > > > > > > For negative refspecs, would we want to loosen the "must-exist" check? > > > Or really, is this getting into the "are we negative on the src or dst" > > > thing you brought up earlier? Especially with --prune, what I really > > > want to say is "do not touch the remote refs/heads/two". > > > > > > We can get work around it by using a wildcard: > > > > > > $ git push --prune dst.git refs/heads/prune/* ^refs/heads/prune/two* > > > To dst.git > > > - [deleted] prune/one > > > > > > So it works as I'd expect already with your patch. But I do wonder if > > > there are corner cases around the src/dst thing that might not behave > > > sensibly. > > > > > > > Hmm. So this raises a good point. I added a variation of this test > > where I used separate names for the source and destination. It looks > > like with the current implementation, negative refspecs always apply > > to the destination. > > I also tried adding a test for fetch --prune, but that ultimately > calls query_refspecs_multiple and query_refspecs. I need to figure out > how negative refspecs need to interact with that function still. So there's an interesting problem here... query_refspecs_multiple takes only the destination name, which makes the "get_stale_heads" not work properly, since for fetch we want to apply the refspec to the remote sides "source".
