[PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
Locked
[PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
 
|
Do not save states of submodules as stash should ignore it.
Signed-off-by: Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> --- git-stash.sh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh index c7c65e2..b500c44 100755 --- a/git-stash.sh +++ b/git-stash.sh @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ create_stash () { git read-tree --index-output="$TMPindex" -m $i_tree && GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMPindex" && export GIT_INDEX_FILE && - git diff --name-only -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && + git diff --name-only --ignore-submodules -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && git update-index -z --add --remove --stdin <"$TMP-stagenames" && git write-tree && rm -f "$TMPindex" -- 2.1.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Re: [PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
|
|
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Do not save states of submodules as stash should ignore it. Can you explain why this is a good idea? (It is not obvious to me either way.) Do we need a test/documentation updates for this? > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> > --- > git-stash.sh | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh > index c7c65e2..b500c44 100755 > --- a/git-stash.sh > +++ b/git-stash.sh > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ create_stash () { > git read-tree --index-output="$TMPindex" -m $i_tree && > GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMPindex" && > export GIT_INDEX_FILE && > - git diff --name-only -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && > + git diff --name-only --ignore-submodules -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && > git update-index -z --add --remove --stdin <"$TMP-stagenames" && > git write-tree && > rm -f "$TMPindex" > -- > 2.1.4 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to [hidden email] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Re: [PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
|
|
Hi Stefan,
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:37:20PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Do not save states of submodules as stash should ignore it. > > Can you explain why this is a good idea? > (It is not obvious to me either way.) Actually, submodules are already ignored by stash, but not fully (it was introduced in commit 6848d58). Current behavior is counter-intuitive, for example (if one has a project with a submodule): $ cd sub1 $ edit .. commit .. edit .. commit. Alternatively, just checkout some other commit $ cd .. # back to main project $ git stash save No local changes to save $ # so, stash declares there are no changes $ edit main.cpp $ # For example, I need to update my working tree to latest master $ git stash save # save local changes of 'main.cpp'... $ git pull --recurse-submodules && git submodule update --recursive # update to latest $ git stash pop # I expect to get stashed changes for 'main.cpp', but... warning: Failed to merge submodule sub1 (commits don't follow merge-base) Auto-merging sub1 CONFLICT (submodule): Merge conflict in sub1 So, this is the issue. Instead of getting my local changes, I got a conflict (and stash is not poped out). The root cause is the 'stash' command does not know how to deal with submodules, but currently it tries to save the state of submodules, and even tries to re-apply the state (and it fails of course). The proposed solution fixes this behaviour. All internal tests work fine with the change. > > Do we need a test/documentation updates for this? I don't think so, 'stash' have never claimed submodule support. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> > > --- > > git-stash.sh | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh > > index c7c65e2..b500c44 100755 > > --- a/git-stash.sh > > +++ b/git-stash.sh > > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ create_stash () { > > git read-tree --index-output="$TMPindex" -m $i_tree && > > GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMPindex" && > > export GIT_INDEX_FILE && > > - git diff --name-only -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && > > + git diff --name-only --ignore-submodules -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && > > git update-index -z --add --remove --stdin <"$TMP-stagenames" && > > git write-tree && > > rm -f "$TMPindex" > > -- > > 2.1.4 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > > the body of a message to [hidden email] > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Re: [PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
|
|
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Stefan, > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:37:20PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > Do not save states of submodules as stash should ignore it. >> >> Can you explain why this is a good idea? >> (It is not obvious to me either way.) > Actually, submodules are already ignored by stash, but not fully (it was introduced in commit 6848d58). > Current behavior is counter-intuitive, for example (if one has a project with a submodule): > $ cd sub1 > $ edit .. commit .. edit .. commit. Alternatively, just checkout some other commit > $ cd .. # back to main project > $ git stash save > No local changes to save > $ # so, stash declares there are no changes > $ edit main.cpp > $ # For example, I need to update my working tree to latest master > $ git stash save # save local changes of 'main.cpp'... > $ git pull --recurse-submodules && git submodule update --recursive # update to latest > $ git stash pop # I expect to get stashed changes for 'main.cpp', but... > warning: Failed to merge submodule sub1 (commits don't follow merge-base) > Auto-merging sub1 > CONFLICT (submodule): Merge conflict in sub1 > > So, this is the issue. Instead of getting my local changes, I got a conflict (and stash is not > poped out). The root cause is the 'stash' command does not know how to deal with submodules, > but currently it tries to save the state of submodules, and even tries to re-apply the state > (and it fails of course). The proposed solution fixes this behaviour. > > All internal tests work fine with the change. I think you could take the example as above and make it into a test? Showing that this change actually fixes a bug. Looking for a good place, I would have expected t/t3906-stash-submodule.sh would be a good place to put your code, but I am not sure how to properly integrate that test there. Maybe we can put the test in t3903 instead? > > >> >> Do we need a test/documentation updates for this? > I don't think so, 'stash' have never claimed submodule support. But it also never explicitly claimed it doesn't support it. Maybe we want to squash in something like (with better wording): diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/Documentation/git-stash.txt index 92df596..b2649eb 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-stash.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-stash.txt @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ the usual reflog syntax (e.g. `stash@{0}` is the most recently created stash, `stash@{1}` is the one before it, `stash@{2.hours.ago}` is also possible). +Stashing ignores submodule operations completely. + OPTIONS ------- Thanks, Stefan > >> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> >> > --- >> > git-stash.sh | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh >> > index c7c65e2..b500c44 100755 >> > --- a/git-stash.sh >> > +++ b/git-stash.sh >> > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ create_stash () { >> > git read-tree --index-output="$TMPindex" -m $i_tree && >> > GIT_INDEX_FILE="$TMPindex" && >> > export GIT_INDEX_FILE && >> > - git diff --name-only -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && >> > + git diff --name-only --ignore-submodules -z HEAD -- >"$TMP-stagenames" && >> > git update-index -z --add --remove --stdin <"$TMP-stagenames" && >> > git write-tree && >> > rm -f "$TMPindex" >> > -- >> > 2.1.4 >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in >> > the body of a message to [hidden email] >> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Re: [PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
|
|
In reply to this post by Vasily Titskiy
Hi Vasily,
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Vasily Titskiy wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:37:20PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Do not save states of submodules as stash should ignore it. > > > > Can you explain why this is a good idea? > > (It is not obvious to me either way.) > Actually, submodules are already ignored by stash, but not fully (it was > introduced in commit 6848d58). > Current behavior is counter-intuitive, for example (if one has a project > with a submodule): > [...] > > So, this is the issue. Instead of getting my local changes, I got a > conflict (and stash is not poped out). The root cause is the 'stash' > command does not know how to deal with submodules, but currently it > tries to save the state of submodules, and even tries to re-apply the > state (and it fails of course). The proposed solution fixes this > behaviour. Please make it a habit to put such information into the commit message. I have to admit that I was as puzzled as Stefan by the proposed patch. Such problems, and tedious back-and-forth discussion, can be easily avoided by providing additional background in the commit message. We even ask in our Documentation/SubmittingPatches explicitly to do that: > The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which: > > . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what is wrong > with the current code without the change. > > . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why the > result with the change is better. > > . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any. BTW this is not something we ask to make contributors' lives harder. In fact it helps everybody, including the contributors themselves. Just imagine what kind of kick-ass commit message you would want to read in six months when you stumble over your very own commit and want to know what the heck it was about. Ciao, Johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Re: [PATCH] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
|
|
In reply to this post by Stefan Beller-4
Hi Stefan,
> > So, this is the issue. Instead of getting my local changes, I got a conflict (and stash is not > > poped out). The root cause is the 'stash' command does not know how to deal with submodules, > > but currently it tries to save the state of submodules, and even tries to re-apply the state > > (and it fails of course). The proposed solution fixes this behaviour. > > > > All internal tests work fine with the change. > > I think you could take the example as above and make it into a test? > Showing that this change actually fixes a bug. > > Looking for a good place, I would have expected t/t3906-stash-submodule.sh > would be a good place to put your code, but I am not sure how to > properly integrate that test there. > > Maybe we can put the test in t3903 instead? It's not a default parameter and it actually hides the issue. I'll send the patches soon. > >> Do we need a test/documentation updates for this? > > I don't think so, 'stash' have never claimed submodule support. > > But it also never explicitly claimed it doesn't support it. > > Maybe we want to squash in something like > (with better wording): > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/Documentation/git-stash.txt > index 92df596..b2649eb 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-stash.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-stash.txt > @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ the usual reflog syntax (e.g. `stash@{0}` is the most recently > created stash, `stash@{1}` is the one before it, `stash@{2.hours.ago}` > is also possible). > > +Stashing ignores submodule operations completely. > + > OPTIONS > ------- -- Vasily -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [hidden email] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
«
Return to git
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |