Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@xxxxxx> writes:
> Git histories may have multiple roots, which can cause
> git merge-base to fail and this caused git cvsserver to die.
>
> This commit teaches git cvsserver to handle a failing git
> merge-base gracefully, and modifies the test case to verify this.
> All the test cases now use a history with two roots.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@xxxxxx>
> ---
> git-cvsserver.perl | 5 +++++
> t/t9400-git-cvsserver-server.sh | 10 +++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl
> index ecded3b..534b41e 100755
> --- a/git-cvsserver.perl
> +++ b/git-cvsserver.perl
> @@ -2543,6 +2543,11 @@ sub update
> if ($parent eq $lastpicked) {
> next;
> }
> + # or it may fail to find a merge base. In this
> + # case we just ignore this merge.
> + if (system("git merge-base $lastpicked $parent >/dev/null 2>/dev/null")) {
> + next;
> + }
> my $base = safe_pipe_capture('git-merge-base',
> $lastpicked, $parent);
> chomp $base;
That is a "Yes, but..." patch.
Running merge-base always twice, due to fear of uncommon case of
failure, feels quite backwards.
Doesn't this work equally well without running a rather
expensive merge-base twice?
git-cvsserver.perl | 9 ++++++++-
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl
index ecded3b..afe3d0b 100755
--- a/git-cvsserver.perl
+++ b/git-cvsserver.perl
@@ -2543,8 +2543,15 @@ sub update
if ($parent eq $lastpicked) {
next;
}
- my $base = safe_pipe_capture('git-merge-base',
+ my $base = eval {
+ safe_pipe_capture('git-merge-base',
$lastpicked, $parent);
+ };
+ # The two branches may not be related at all,
+ # in which case merge base simply fails to find
+ # any, but that's Ok.
+ next if ($@);
+
chomp $base;
if ($base) {
my @merged;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
