On 24/12/2021 16:46, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24 2021, Philip Oakley wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2021 23:36, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 21 2021, Philip Oakley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry for the late comment..
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2021 14:31, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ævar,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference between "master" and "git-for-windows/main" is large
>>>>>> enough that comparing the two will segfault on my system. This is
>>>>>> because the range-diff code does some expensive calculations and will
>>>>>> overflow the "int" type.
>>>>> You are holding this thing wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The `main` branch of Git for Windows uses merging rebases, therefore you
>>>>> need to use a commit range like
>>>>> `git-for-windows/main^{/^Start.the.merging}..git-for-windows/main` and
>>>>> compare it to `git-for-windows/main..master`.
>>>> I'm not sure that a Git repo has an established way of indicating to how
>>>> it's branching/merging/releasing workflow is set up, especially for
>>>> projects with non-normative use cases, such as Git for Windows. We don't
>>>> have a git document for covering the different workflows in common use
>>>> for easy reference and consistent terminology.
>>>>
>>>> The merging rebase flow, with 'fake' merge does solve a problem that
>>>> git.git doesn't have but could easily be a common process for 'friendly
>>>> forks' that follow an upstream with local patches. The choice of
>>>> '{/^Start.the.merging}' is currently specific to the Git-for-Windows
>>>> case making it harder to discover this useful maintainer method.
>>> Yes, but let's not get lost in the weeds here. As I noted I just picked
>>> GFW as a handy example of a large history & that command as a handy
>>> example of something that segfaults on "master".
>> Had you already experienced the segfault locally, without using the GFW
>> example? How many commits were present in that case?
> Yes, I ran into it "orginally" just range-diffing as part of a local
> build process.
>
> I could dig up what revision range it was exactly, but does it matter?
No the particular range-diff doesn't matter, I was checking that this
wasn't a confusion about the Git for Windows workflow.
>
>> The GFW example seems like it's taken the discussion in the wrong direction.
>>
>> For me:
>> $ git log git/master..origin/main --pretty=oneline | wc -l
>> 62105
>>
>> That's a lot of commits to have in a range diff. It's almost as big as
>> the whole of git/master
>>
>> $ git log git/master --pretty=oneline | wc -l
>> 65400
>>
>> Personally I'd like a way of trimming 'deadheads' that's a bit easier
>> that needing to remember Dscho's magic string [1], but time will tell.
> There are some repos that move forward by 500-1k commits/day, and people
> do cherry-pick patches etc. So wanting to range-diff after a couple of
> months is something you might do...
It feels to me that in such cases that maybe the algorithm may need
tweaking for the needle in a haystack case ;-)
>
>>> So the point really isn't to say that we should fix range-diff becase
>>> it'll allow us to run this practically useful command on a git.git fork.
>>>
>>>> I fully agree that the range-diff should probably have a patch limit at
>>>> some sensible value.
>>> Why would it? If I'm willing to spend the CPU to produce a range-diff of
>>> an absurdly large range and I've got the memory why shouldn't we support
>>> it?
>> There will always be a limit somewhere, and if it's not commit count or
>> other easily explained & checked limit it will be hard to rationalise
>> about why Git suddenly fails with an error (or segfault) in those
>> humungous case.
> I think it's fairly easy to explain the "your system wouldn't let us
> malloc more, we're dying" that we get from xmalloc(), st_*() and the
> like.
That's better than a segfault, but does it give actionable information
to the user as to what (& how much) they should do? Hence the comment
about a commit count measure.
>>> We don't in cases like xdiff where it's not trivial to just raise the
>>> limits, but here it seems relatively easy.
>>>
>>> I think limits to save users from spending CPU time they didn't expect
>>> are reasonable, but then we can handle them like the diff/merge rename
>>> detection limits, i.e. print a warning/advice, and allow the user to
>>> opt-out.
>>>
>>> That also doesn't really apply here since "diff/merge" will/might still
>>> do something useful in those scenarios, whereas range-diff would just
>>> have truncated output.
>>>
>>>> The 'confusion' between the types size_t, long and int, does ripple
>>>> through a lot of portable code, as shown in the series. Not an easy problem.
>>> Yes, although here we're not just casting and overflowing types, but
>>> overflowing on multiplication and addition, whereas usually we'd just
>>> overflow on "nr" being too big for "int" or similar.
>> I've been very slowly looking at the `long` limits on GFW which have
>> very similar arithmetic issues for pointers, often with no clear answers.
> Right, that's to do with the whole "long" or whatever use in the
> object.c and related code, but I don't think that's applicable here, is
> it?
That question was more about the policy aspects of ensuring that any
proposals aren't 'head against a brick wall' when it comes to the
potential intrusiveness.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Philip
