On 18-nov-2022 19:12:10, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18 2022, Victoria Dye wrote: > > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 17 2022, Rubén Justo wrote: > >>> Whenever we copy or move (forced or not) we must make sure that there is > >>> no residual configuration that will be, probably erroneously, inherited > >>> by the new branch. To avoid confusions, clear any branch configuration > >>> before setting the configuration from the copied or moved branch. > >> > >> So, whatever tea leaves we read into the history, or whether this was a > >> good or bad design in the first place, I think we should probably lean > >> towards not having this be a bug fix, but a new feature. Both modes are > >> clearly easy to support. > >> > >> And then document it in terms of some new switch being the equivalent to > >> --remove-section followed by a rename, the existing thing a rename etc. Mmm... the way I see this is as an unexpected _and unintentional_ result, not sure if I am happy describing this is as a bug. Maybe we can see this as "completing the functionality of moving and copying a branch", a missing "NEEDSWORK". Though I think the message describing this patch as a problem is sensible because of the motivations and for future reference. I might agree with a new option like "--mix-configuration" to add this "feature" (and document it). But I don't find sensible to consolidate this unexpected and unintentional result, imho, and making the expectable an option. > But my spidey sense is a bit tickled by the proposed change discussing > the existing behavior as a pure bug, when it seems to me that it's > approximately what you'd get if it was implemented in terms of "config > --rename-section", v.s. the proposed new behavior of (as I understand > it) a "config --remove-section" followed by "config --rename-section". Explaining this as something you'd get modifying directly the configuration, might not be a good idea. A user can break the config, but "git branch" should not. > I think a conservative approach would be to focus narrowly on the > tracking config, if that's the thing that's at issue. I.e. we read that > ourselves, know that it's broken if it's transmuted in certain ways etc. > > But the proposed patch suggests that we extend that fix to anything we > might find in that config namespace. Yes, as the expectation (again, imho) is that the resultant branch gets its original configuration not a mix of the original and the remanent. > >>> @@ -583,12 +583,17 @@ static void copy_or_rename_branch(const char *oldname, const char *newname, int > >>> > >>> strbuf_release(&logmsg); > >>> > >>> - strbuf_addf(&oldsection, "branch.%s", interpreted_oldname); > >>> - strbuf_addf(&newsection, "branch.%s", interpreted_newname); > >>> - if (!copy && git_config_rename_section(oldsection.buf, newsection.buf) < 0) > >>> - die(_("Branch is renamed, but update of config-file failed")); > >>> - if (copy && strcmp(interpreted_oldname, interpreted_newname) && git_config_copy_section(oldsection.buf, newsection.buf) < 0) > >>> - die(_("Branch is copied, but update of config-file failed")); > >>> + if (strcmp(interpreted_oldname, interpreted_newname)) { > >>> + strbuf_addf(&oldsection, "branch.%s", interpreted_oldname); > >>> + strbuf_addf(&newsection, "branch.%s", interpreted_newname); > >>> + > >>> + delete_branch_config(interpreted_newname); > >>> + > >>> + if (!copy && git_config_rename_section(oldsection.buf, newsection.buf) < 0) > >>> + die(_("Branch is renamed, but update of config-file failed")); > >>> + if (copy && git_config_copy_section(oldsection.buf, newsection.buf) < 0) > >>> + die(_("Branch is copied, but update of config-file failed")); > >> > >> Aside from any question of a hypothetical "should", your implementation > >> is running head-first into a major caveat in our config API. > >> > >> Which is that we don't have transactions or rollbacks, and we don't even > >> carry a lock forward for all of these. > >> > >> So, there's crappy edge cases in the old implementation as you've found, > >> but at least it mostly failed-safe. > >> > >> But here we'll delete_branch_config(), then release the lock, and then > >> try to rename the new branch to that location, which might fail. > >> > >> So, we'll be left with no config for the thing we tried to clobber, nor > >> the new config. > > > > This is a good point, so to add to it: I think a fairly unobtrusive solution > > would be to move the config deletion after the rename is 100% complete. The update of the ref is already done when we operate on the configuration. I think that _even_ if the git_config_{rename/copy}_section fails, the delete_branch_config() is sensible. > Also, whatever this is supposed to do, shouldn't we make it consistent > with other "git branch" modes. E.g.: > > git branch -D foo > git -P config --show-origin --get-regexp '^branch\.foo\.' > git config branch.foo.rebase true > git branch foo -t origin/seen > git -P config --show-origin --get-regexp '^branch\.foo\.' > > Will emit: > > Deleted branch foo (was ...). > branch 'foo' set up to track 'origin/seen'. > file:.git/config branch.foo.rebase true > file:.git/config branch.foo.remote origin > file:.git/config branch.foo.merge refs/heads/seen I'm not sure. I did notice that, and I can think of ill but legit uses there: a user might be setting the configuration and then creating the reference. It is tangential here, but we can issue a warning like: $ git branch -t foo $ git branch -t bar $ git branch -C foo bar $ git branch --set-upstream-to foo bar warning: branch.bar.remote has multiple values warning: branch.bar.merge has multiple values branch 'bar' set up to track 'foo'. I have different unsent patches to address this too, but I'm not sure what we want there, and how. > The upthread commit message doesn't discuss it, but even multiple > "merge" values are a valid state of affairs. E.g.: > > $ git branch seen -t origin/seen > branch 'seen' set up to track 'origin/seen'. > $ git branch next -t origin/next > branch 'next' set up to track 'origin/next'. > $ git branch -C seen next > $ git config --get-regexp 'branch\.next' > branch.next.remote origin > branch.next.merge refs/heads/seen > branch.next.remote origin > branch.next.merge refs/heads/next > > Now, if you do: > > git checkout next > > and: > git pull --no-rebase > > You'll get e.g.: > > Merge branches 'next' and 'seen' of github.com:git/git into next I think this is unexpected and unintentional. > And again, don't take any of that as an a-priori argument against > changing it, I'm still undecided. I'd just prefer that we know what it > is we're changing. Thank you for your analysis.