On March 1, 2021 4:48 AM, Jean-Marie Lemetayer wrote: > To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC] new subcommand: git sync > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 5:42 PM Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > On February 26, 2021 10:25 AM, : Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > To: Jean-Marie Lemetayer <jeanmarie.lemetayer@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [RFC] new subcommand: git sync > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26 2021, Jean-Marie Lemetayer wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > I created a new "git sync" sub-command a few months ago to deal > > > > with the pull request workflow. > > > > > > > > Its goals are to: > > > > - keep all configured branches synchronized with the remotes > > > > (--set-upstream) > > > > - do not touch your wip feature branches (which has diverged from > > > > upstream) > > > > - prune the remotes > > > > > > > > As I use it on a daily basis, to synchronize the remotes and then > > > > be able to quickly rebase my pull requests. I think it's worth > > > > sharing. What do > > > you think? > > > > > > > > For now it is a simple shell script available here: > > > > https://github.com/jmlemetayer/one-time-setup/blob/main/git-sync > > > > > > > > If you think it's a good idea, I'll propose a series of patches > > > > with the new sub-command, the manual page and the associated tests. > > > > > > Have you seen 'git branch -v' and 'git branch -v --format=*'? There > > > seems to be a high amount of overlap between this wrapper you've > written and it. > > > > > > I suspect most of what you have here could be turned into an %(if:*) > > > directive where you emit the pull/push command as appropriate. > > > > > > If you search the internet for "git-sync" there's dozens of such > > > command (and I've personally observed at least two of them being > > > written by co- workers in real time, not sure if either of those is in the > Google results). > > > > > > So I think there's probably a worthwhile problem to be solved here > > > that could be turned into patches to git.git, something between "git > > > [clone|push] --mirror" and "git branch -v". > > > > > > I don't think there's any interest in getting new shellscript > > > built-ins in the future. We've been actively migrating away from those. > > > > > > But most of the logic in your script is just calling the > > > ref-filter.c API behind the scenes. > > > > > > B.t.w. you can probably speed up & simplify your script a lot by > > > making use of IFS="" in the shell and not calling N for-each-ref > > > commands when it seems to me that one invocation would do. Just > dump > > > the N fields you need split on some token, and split on that token in your > loop. > > > > Yeah, I'm one of those that has made extensive use of the name "sync" > when using git to synchronize between (POSIX) OSS/USS and (Non-POSIX) > NonStop/MVS respectively. If you're going somewhere with it, could I > suggest something like "reconcile" or of it is specific to the pull workflow, > maybe "pull-sync"? I agree that scripts are not desirable long-term. > > Thanks for the feedback ! > > To sum up -- if I have the time to do it -- I must do it in native C and not use a > generic name like "sync". > > As it is a way to keep my branches up to date with the remotes, maybe > create an option for the "git branch" submodule instead of a new > subcommand? Maybe "git branch --synchronize" or something better ... > > As using "Pull request" is not the only way to use this command and also > because there is a big trolling issue with the termes"Pull request" and > "Merge request" I don't think using "pull-sync" is a good idea either. > > I know that the first golden rule of coding is "Naming", but damn, sometimes > it's hard to find a good name. It's almost feels like you are thinking along the lines of a variant of a mirror rather than pulls and merges. I wonder whether that analogy would hold up? I would love to have a stable mechanism of mirroring repositories when doing development on 2-3 platforms at the same time. Yes, pull/merge can be a bit heavy handed in this situation. I have considered something like rsync to do the job (which it can), but within a git context it sounds more like a mirror - although it would be nice to mirror work in progress. So perhaps this should go through the stash mechanism.
