1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-05-05 04:46:12 +02:00
git/branch.c

853 lines
24 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include "git-compat-util.h"
#include "advice.h"
#include "config.h"
#include "branch.h"
#include "environment.h"
#include "gettext.h"
#include "hex.h"
#include "object-name.h"
#include "path.h"
#include "refs.h"
#include "refspec.h"
#include "remote.h"
#include "repository.h"
#include "sequencer.h"
#include "commit.h"
#include "worktree.h"
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
#include "submodule-config.h"
#include "run-command.h"
branch: add branch_checked_out() helper The validate_new_branchname() method contains a check to see if a branch is checked out in any non-bare worktree. This is intended to prevent a force push that will mess up an existing checkout. This helper is not suitable to performing just that check, because the method will die() when the branch is checked out instead of returning an error code. Create a new branch_checked_out() helper that performs the most basic form of this check. To ensure we can call branch_checked_out() in a loop with good performance, do a single preparation step that iterates over all worktrees and stores their current HEAD branches in a strmap. The branch_checked_out() helper can then discover these branches using a hash lookup. This helper is currently missing some key functionality. Namely: it doesn't look for active rebases or bisects which mean that the branch is "checked out" even though HEAD doesn't point to that ref. This functionality will be added in a coming change. We could use branch_checked_out() in validate_new_branchname(), but this missing functionality would be a regression. However, we have no tests that cover this case! Add a new test script that will be expanded with these cross-worktree ref updates. The current tests would still pass if we refactored validate_new_branchname() to use this version of branch_checked_out(). The next change will fix that functionality and add the proper test coverage. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-06-14 21:27:29 +02:00
#include "strmap.h"
struct tracking {
struct refspec_item spec;
struct string_list *srcs;
const char *remote;
int matches;
};
struct find_tracked_branch_cb {
struct tracking *tracking;
struct string_list ambiguous_remotes;
};
static int find_tracked_branch(struct remote *remote, void *priv)
{
struct find_tracked_branch_cb *ftb = priv;
struct tracking *tracking = ftb->tracking;
if (!remote_find_tracking(remote, &tracking->spec)) {
switch (++tracking->matches) {
case 1:
string_list_append_nodup(tracking->srcs, tracking->spec.src);
tracking->remote = remote->name;
break;
case 2:
/* there are at least two remotes; backfill the first one */
string_list_append(&ftb->ambiguous_remotes, tracking->remote);
/* fall through */
default:
string_list_append(&ftb->ambiguous_remotes, remote->name);
free(tracking->spec.src);
string_list_clear(tracking->srcs, 0);
break;
}
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
/* remote_find_tracking() searches by src if present */
tracking->spec.src = NULL;
}
return 0;
}
static int should_setup_rebase(const char *origin)
{
switch (autorebase) {
case AUTOREBASE_NEVER:
return 0;
case AUTOREBASE_LOCAL:
return origin == NULL;
case AUTOREBASE_REMOTE:
return origin != NULL;
case AUTOREBASE_ALWAYS:
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
/**
* Install upstream tracking configuration for a branch; specifically, add
* `branch.<name>.remote` and `branch.<name>.merge` entries.
*
* `flag` contains integer flags for options; currently only
* BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE is checked.
*
* `local` is the name of the branch whose configuration we're installing.
*
* `origin` is the name of the remote owning the upstream branches. NULL means
* the upstream branches are local to this repo.
*
* `remotes` is a list of refs that are upstream of local
*/
static int install_branch_config_multiple_remotes(int flag, const char *local,
const char *origin, struct string_list *remotes)
{
const char *shortname = NULL;
struct strbuf key = STRBUF_INIT;
struct string_list_item *item;
int rebasing = should_setup_rebase(origin);
if (!remotes->nr)
BUG("must provide at least one remote for branch config");
if (rebasing && remotes->nr > 1)
die(_("cannot inherit upstream tracking configuration of "
"multiple refs when rebasing is requested"));
/*
* If the new branch is trying to track itself, something has gone
* wrong. Warn the user and don't proceed any further.
*/
if (!origin)
for_each_string_list_item(item, remotes)
if (skip_prefix(item->string, "refs/heads/", &shortname)
&& !strcmp(local, shortname)) {
warning(_("not setting branch '%s' as its own upstream"),
local);
return 0;
}
strbuf_addf(&key, "branch.%s.remote", local);
if (git_config_set_gently(key.buf, origin ? origin : ".") < 0)
goto out_err;
strbuf_reset(&key);
strbuf_addf(&key, "branch.%s.merge", local);
/*
* We want to overwrite any existing config with all the branches in
* "remotes". Override any existing config, then write our branches. If
* more than one is provided, use CONFIG_REGEX_NONE to preserve what
* we've written so far.
*/
if (git_config_set_gently(key.buf, NULL) < 0)
goto out_err;
for_each_string_list_item(item, remotes)
if (git_config_set_multivar_gently(key.buf, item->string, CONFIG_REGEX_NONE, 0) < 0)
goto out_err;
if (rebasing) {
strbuf_reset(&key);
strbuf_addf(&key, "branch.%s.rebase", local);
if (git_config_set_gently(key.buf, "true") < 0)
goto out_err;
}
strbuf_release(&key);
if (flag & BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE) {
struct strbuf tmp_ref_name = STRBUF_INIT;
struct string_list friendly_ref_names = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
for_each_string_list_item(item, remotes) {
shortname = item->string;
skip_prefix(shortname, "refs/heads/", &shortname);
if (origin) {
strbuf_addf(&tmp_ref_name, "%s/%s",
origin, shortname);
string_list_append_nodup(
&friendly_ref_names,
strbuf_detach(&tmp_ref_name, NULL));
} else {
string_list_append(
&friendly_ref_names, shortname);
}
}
if (remotes->nr == 1) {
/*
* Rebasing is only allowed in the case of a single
* upstream branch.
*/
printf_ln(rebasing ?
_("branch '%s' set up to track '%s' by rebasing.") :
_("branch '%s' set up to track '%s'."),
local, friendly_ref_names.items[0].string);
} else {
printf_ln(_("branch '%s' set up to track:"), local);
for_each_string_list_item(item, &friendly_ref_names)
printf_ln(" %s", item->string);
}
string_list_clear(&friendly_ref_names, 0);
}
return 0;
out_err:
strbuf_release(&key);
error(_("unable to write upstream branch configuration"));
advise(_("\nAfter fixing the error cause you may try to fix up\n"
"the remote tracking information by invoking:"));
if (remotes->nr == 1)
advise(" git branch --set-upstream-to=%s%s%s",
origin ? origin : "",
origin ? "/" : "",
remotes->items[0].string);
else {
advise(" git config --add branch.\"%s\".remote %s",
local, origin ? origin : ".");
for_each_string_list_item(item, remotes)
advise(" git config --add branch.\"%s\".merge %s",
local, item->string);
}
return -1;
}
int install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, const char *origin,
const char *remote)
{
int ret;
struct string_list remotes = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
string_list_append(&remotes, remote);
ret = install_branch_config_multiple_remotes(flag, local, origin, &remotes);
string_list_clear(&remotes, 0);
return ret;
}
static int inherit_tracking(struct tracking *tracking, const char *orig_ref)
{
const char *bare_ref;
struct branch *branch;
int i;
bare_ref = orig_ref;
skip_prefix(orig_ref, "refs/heads/", &bare_ref);
branch = branch_get(bare_ref);
if (!branch->remote_name) {
warning(_("asked to inherit tracking from '%s', but no remote is set"),
bare_ref);
return -1;
}
if (branch->merge_nr < 1 || !branch->merge_name || !branch->merge_name[0]) {
warning(_("asked to inherit tracking from '%s', but no merge configuration is set"),
bare_ref);
return -1;
}
tracking->remote = branch->remote_name;
for (i = 0; i < branch->merge_nr; i++)
string_list_append(tracking->srcs, branch->merge_name[i]);
return 0;
}
/*
* Used internally to set the branch.<new_ref>.{remote,merge} config
* settings so that branch 'new_ref' tracks 'orig_ref'. Unlike
* dwim_and_setup_tracking(), this does not do DWIM, i.e. "origin/main"
* will not be expanded to "refs/remotes/origin/main", so it is not safe
* for 'orig_ref' to be raw user input.
*/
static void setup_tracking(const char *new_ref, const char *orig_ref,
enum branch_track track, int quiet)
{
struct tracking tracking;
struct string_list tracking_srcs = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
int config_flags = quiet ? 0 : BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE;
struct find_tracked_branch_cb ftb_cb = {
.tracking = &tracking,
.ambiguous_remotes = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP,
};
if (!track)
BUG("asked to set up tracking, but tracking is disallowed");
memset(&tracking, 0, sizeof(tracking));
tracking.spec.dst = (char *)orig_ref;
tracking.srcs = &tracking_srcs;
if (track != BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT)
for_each_remote(find_tracked_branch, &ftb_cb);
else if (inherit_tracking(&tracking, orig_ref))
goto cleanup;
if (!tracking.matches)
switch (track) {
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
/* If ref is not remote, still use local */
case BRANCH_TRACK_ALWAYS:
case BRANCH_TRACK_EXPLICIT:
case BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE:
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
/* Remote matches not evaluated */
case BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT:
break;
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
/* Otherwise, if no remote don't track */
default:
goto cleanup;
}
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
/*
* This check does not apply to BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT;
* that supports multiple entries in tracking_srcs but
* leaves tracking.matches at 0.
*/
if (tracking.matches > 1) {
int status = die_message(_("not tracking: ambiguous information for ref '%s'"),
orig_ref);
if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_AMBIGUOUS_FETCH_REFSPEC)) {
struct strbuf remotes_advice = STRBUF_INIT;
struct string_list_item *item;
for_each_string_list_item(item, &ftb_cb.ambiguous_remotes)
/*
* TRANSLATORS: This is a line listing a remote with duplicate
* refspecs in the advice message below. For RTL languages you'll
* probably want to swap the "%s" and leading " " space around.
*/
strbuf_addf(&remotes_advice, _(" %s\n"), item->string);
/*
* TRANSLATORS: The second argument is a \n-delimited list of
* duplicate refspecs, composed above.
*/
advise(_("There are multiple remotes whose fetch refspecs map to the remote\n"
"tracking ref '%s':\n"
"%s"
"\n"
"This is typically a configuration error.\n"
"\n"
"To support setting up tracking branches, ensure that\n"
"different remotes' fetch refspecs map into different\n"
"tracking namespaces."), orig_ref,
remotes_advice.buf);
strbuf_release(&remotes_advice);
}
exit(status);
}
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
if (track == BRANCH_TRACK_SIMPLE) {
/*
* Only track if remote branch name matches.
* Reaching into items[0].string is safe because
* we know there is at least one and not more than
* one entry (because only BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT can
* produce more than one entry).
*/
const char *tracked_branch;
if (!skip_prefix(tracking.srcs->items[0].string,
"refs/heads/", &tracked_branch) ||
strcmp(tracked_branch, new_ref))
goto cleanup;
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
}
if (tracking.srcs->nr < 1)
string_list_append(tracking.srcs, orig_ref);
if (install_branch_config_multiple_remotes(config_flags, new_ref,
tracking.remote, tracking.srcs) < 0)
exit(1);
cleanup:
string_list_clear(&tracking_srcs, 0);
string_list_clear(&ftb_cb.ambiguous_remotes, 0);
}
int read_branch_desc(struct strbuf *buf, const char *branch_name)
{
char *v = NULL;
struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT;
strbuf_addf(&name, "branch.%s.description", branch_name);
if (git_config_get_string(name.buf, &v)) {
strbuf_release(&name);
return -1;
}
strbuf_addstr(buf, v);
free(v);
strbuf_release(&name);
return 0;
}
/*
* Check if 'name' can be a valid name for a branch; die otherwise.
* Return 1 if the named branch already exists; return 0 otherwise.
* Fill ref with the full refname for the branch.
*/
int validate_branchname(const char *name, struct strbuf *ref)
{
if (strbuf_check_branch_ref(ref, name)) {
int code = die_message(_("'%s' is not a valid branch name"), name);
advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_REF_SYNTAX,
_("See `man git check-ref-format`"));
exit(code);
}
return ref_exists(ref->buf);
}
branch: add branch_checked_out() helper The validate_new_branchname() method contains a check to see if a branch is checked out in any non-bare worktree. This is intended to prevent a force push that will mess up an existing checkout. This helper is not suitable to performing just that check, because the method will die() when the branch is checked out instead of returning an error code. Create a new branch_checked_out() helper that performs the most basic form of this check. To ensure we can call branch_checked_out() in a loop with good performance, do a single preparation step that iterates over all worktrees and stores their current HEAD branches in a strmap. The branch_checked_out() helper can then discover these branches using a hash lookup. This helper is currently missing some key functionality. Namely: it doesn't look for active rebases or bisects which mean that the branch is "checked out" even though HEAD doesn't point to that ref. This functionality will be added in a coming change. We could use branch_checked_out() in validate_new_branchname(), but this missing functionality would be a regression. However, we have no tests that cover this case! Add a new test script that will be expanded with these cross-worktree ref updates. The current tests would still pass if we refactored validate_new_branchname() to use this version of branch_checked_out(). The next change will fix that functionality and add the proper test coverage. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-06-14 21:27:29 +02:00
static int initialized_checked_out_branches;
static struct strmap current_checked_out_branches = STRMAP_INIT;
static void prepare_checked_out_branches(void)
{
int i = 0;
struct worktree **worktrees;
if (initialized_checked_out_branches)
return;
initialized_checked_out_branches = 1;
worktrees = get_worktrees();
while (worktrees[i]) {
char *old;
struct wt_status_state state = { 0 };
branch: add branch_checked_out() helper The validate_new_branchname() method contains a check to see if a branch is checked out in any non-bare worktree. This is intended to prevent a force push that will mess up an existing checkout. This helper is not suitable to performing just that check, because the method will die() when the branch is checked out instead of returning an error code. Create a new branch_checked_out() helper that performs the most basic form of this check. To ensure we can call branch_checked_out() in a loop with good performance, do a single preparation step that iterates over all worktrees and stores their current HEAD branches in a strmap. The branch_checked_out() helper can then discover these branches using a hash lookup. This helper is currently missing some key functionality. Namely: it doesn't look for active rebases or bisects which mean that the branch is "checked out" even though HEAD doesn't point to that ref. This functionality will be added in a coming change. We could use branch_checked_out() in validate_new_branchname(), but this missing functionality would be a regression. However, we have no tests that cover this case! Add a new test script that will be expanded with these cross-worktree ref updates. The current tests would still pass if we refactored validate_new_branchname() to use this version of branch_checked_out(). The next change will fix that functionality and add the proper test coverage. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-06-14 21:27:29 +02:00
struct worktree *wt = worktrees[i++];
2022-07-19 20:33:35 +02:00
struct string_list update_refs = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
branch: add branch_checked_out() helper The validate_new_branchname() method contains a check to see if a branch is checked out in any non-bare worktree. This is intended to prevent a force push that will mess up an existing checkout. This helper is not suitable to performing just that check, because the method will die() when the branch is checked out instead of returning an error code. Create a new branch_checked_out() helper that performs the most basic form of this check. To ensure we can call branch_checked_out() in a loop with good performance, do a single preparation step that iterates over all worktrees and stores their current HEAD branches in a strmap. The branch_checked_out() helper can then discover these branches using a hash lookup. This helper is currently missing some key functionality. Namely: it doesn't look for active rebases or bisects which mean that the branch is "checked out" even though HEAD doesn't point to that ref. This functionality will be added in a coming change. We could use branch_checked_out() in validate_new_branchname(), but this missing functionality would be a regression. However, we have no tests that cover this case! Add a new test script that will be expanded with these cross-worktree ref updates. The current tests would still pass if we refactored validate_new_branchname() to use this version of branch_checked_out(). The next change will fix that functionality and add the proper test coverage. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-06-14 21:27:29 +02:00
if (wt->is_bare)
continue;
if (wt->head_ref) {
old = strmap_put(&current_checked_out_branches,
wt->head_ref,
xstrdup(wt->path));
free(old);
}
if (wt_status_check_rebase(wt, &state) &&
(state.rebase_in_progress || state.rebase_interactive_in_progress) &&
state.branch) {
struct strbuf ref = STRBUF_INIT;
strbuf_addf(&ref, "refs/heads/%s", state.branch);
old = strmap_put(&current_checked_out_branches,
ref.buf,
xstrdup(wt->path));
free(old);
strbuf_release(&ref);
}
wt_status_state_free_buffers(&state);
if (wt_status_check_bisect(wt, &state) &&
status: fix branch shown when not only bisecting In 83c750acde (wt-status.*: better advice for git status added, 2012-06-05), git-status received new informative messages to describe the ongoing work in a worktree. These messages were enhanced in 0722c805d6 (status: show the branch name if possible in in-progress info, 2013-02-03), to show, if possible, the branch where the operation was initiated. Since then, we show incorrect information when several operations are in progress and one of them is bisect: $ git checkout -b foo $ GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR='echo break >' git rebase -i HEAD~ $ git checkout -b bar $ git bisect start $ git status ... You are currently editing a commit while rebasing branch 'bar' on '...'. You are currently bisecting, started from branch 'bar'. ... Note that we erroneously say "while rebasing branch 'bar'" when we should be referring to "foo". This must have gone unnoticed for so long because it must be unusual to start a bisection while another operation is in progress. And even less usual to involve different branches. It caught my attention reviewing a leak introduced in 8b87cfd000 (wt-status: move strbuf into read_and_strip_branch(), 2013-03-16). A simple change to deal with this situation can be to record in struct wt_status_state, the branch where the bisect starts separately from the branch related to other operations. Let's do it and so we'll be able to display correct information and we'll avoid the leak as well. Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-09-09 22:12:47 +02:00
state.bisecting_from) {
struct strbuf ref = STRBUF_INIT;
status: fix branch shown when not only bisecting In 83c750acde (wt-status.*: better advice for git status added, 2012-06-05), git-status received new informative messages to describe the ongoing work in a worktree. These messages were enhanced in 0722c805d6 (status: show the branch name if possible in in-progress info, 2013-02-03), to show, if possible, the branch where the operation was initiated. Since then, we show incorrect information when several operations are in progress and one of them is bisect: $ git checkout -b foo $ GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR='echo break >' git rebase -i HEAD~ $ git checkout -b bar $ git bisect start $ git status ... You are currently editing a commit while rebasing branch 'bar' on '...'. You are currently bisecting, started from branch 'bar'. ... Note that we erroneously say "while rebasing branch 'bar'" when we should be referring to "foo". This must have gone unnoticed for so long because it must be unusual to start a bisection while another operation is in progress. And even less usual to involve different branches. It caught my attention reviewing a leak introduced in 8b87cfd000 (wt-status: move strbuf into read_and_strip_branch(), 2013-03-16). A simple change to deal with this situation can be to record in struct wt_status_state, the branch where the bisect starts separately from the branch related to other operations. Let's do it and so we'll be able to display correct information and we'll avoid the leak as well. Signed-off-by: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-09-09 22:12:47 +02:00
strbuf_addf(&ref, "refs/heads/%s", state.bisecting_from);
old = strmap_put(&current_checked_out_branches,
ref.buf,
xstrdup(wt->path));
free(old);
strbuf_release(&ref);
}
wt_status_state_free_buffers(&state);
2022-07-19 20:33:35 +02:00
if (!sequencer_get_update_refs_state(get_worktree_git_dir(wt),
&update_refs)) {
struct string_list_item *item;
for_each_string_list_item(item, &update_refs) {
old = strmap_put(&current_checked_out_branches,
item->string,
xstrdup(wt->path));
free(old);
}
string_list_clear(&update_refs, 1);
}
branch: add branch_checked_out() helper The validate_new_branchname() method contains a check to see if a branch is checked out in any non-bare worktree. This is intended to prevent a force push that will mess up an existing checkout. This helper is not suitable to performing just that check, because the method will die() when the branch is checked out instead of returning an error code. Create a new branch_checked_out() helper that performs the most basic form of this check. To ensure we can call branch_checked_out() in a loop with good performance, do a single preparation step that iterates over all worktrees and stores their current HEAD branches in a strmap. The branch_checked_out() helper can then discover these branches using a hash lookup. This helper is currently missing some key functionality. Namely: it doesn't look for active rebases or bisects which mean that the branch is "checked out" even though HEAD doesn't point to that ref. This functionality will be added in a coming change. We could use branch_checked_out() in validate_new_branchname(), but this missing functionality would be a regression. However, we have no tests that cover this case! Add a new test script that will be expanded with these cross-worktree ref updates. The current tests would still pass if we refactored validate_new_branchname() to use this version of branch_checked_out(). The next change will fix that functionality and add the proper test coverage. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-06-14 21:27:29 +02:00
}
free_worktrees(worktrees);
}
const char *branch_checked_out(const char *refname)
{
prepare_checked_out_branches();
return strmap_get(&current_checked_out_branches, refname);
}
/*
* Check if a branch 'name' can be created as a new branch; die otherwise.
* 'force' can be used when it is OK for the named branch already exists.
* Return 1 if the named branch already exists; return 0 otherwise.
* Fill ref with the full refname for the branch.
*/
int validate_new_branchname(const char *name, struct strbuf *ref, int force)
{
const char *path;
if (!validate_branchname(name, ref))
return 0;
if (!force)
die(_("a branch named '%s' already exists"),
ref->buf + strlen("refs/heads/"));
if ((path = branch_checked_out(ref->buf)))
die(_("cannot force update the branch '%s' "
branch: update the message to refuse touching a branch in-use The "git branch -f" command can refuse to force-update a branch that is used by another worktree. The original rationale for this behaviour was that updating a branch that is checked out in another worktree, without making a matching change to the index and the working tree files in that worktree, will lead to a very confused user. "git diff HEAD" will no longer give a useful patch, because HEAD is a commit unrelated to what the index and the working tree in the worktree were based on, for example. These days, the same mechanism also protects branches that are being rebased or bisected, and the same machanism is expected to be the right place to add more checks, when we decide to protect branches undergoing other kinds of operations. We however forgot to rethink the messaging, which originally said that we are refusing to touch the branch because it is "checked out" elsewhere, when d2ba271a (branch: check for bisects and rebases, 2022-06-14) started to protect branches that are being rebased or bisected. The spirit of the check has always been that we do not want to disrupt the use of the same branch in other worktrees. Let's reword the message slightly to say that the branch is "used by" another worktree, instead of "checked out". We could teach the branch.c:prepare_checked_out_branches() function to remember why it decided that a particular branch needs protecting (i.e. was it because it was checked out? being bisected? something else?) in addition to which worktree the branch was in use, and use that in the error message to say "you cannot force update this branch because it is being bisected in the worktree X", etc., but it is dubious that such extra complexity is worth it. The message already tells which directory the worktree in question is, and it should be just a "chdir" away for the user to find out what state it is in, if the user felt curious enough. So let's not go there yet. Helped-by: Josh Sref <jsoref@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-07-21 23:53:12 +02:00
"used by worktree at '%s'"),
ref->buf + strlen("refs/heads/"), path);
return 1;
}
branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/* The current code for validating tracking branches (e.g. the argument to the -t/--track option) hardcodes refs/heads/* and refs/remotes/* as the potential locations for tracking branches. This works with the refspecs created by "git clone" or "git remote add", but is suboptimal in other cases: - If "refs/remotes/foo/bar" exists without any association to a remote (i.e. there is no remote named "foo", or no remote with a refspec that matches "refs/remotes/foo/bar"), then it is impossible to set up a valid upstream config that tracks it. Currently, the code defaults to using "refs/remotes/foo/bar" from repo "." as the upstream, which works, but is probably not what the user had in mind when running "git branch baz --track foo/bar". - If the user has tweaked the fetch refspec for a remote to put its remote-tracking branches outside of refs/remotes/*, e.g. by running git config remote.foo.fetch "+refs/heads/*:refs/foo_stuff/*" then the current code will refuse to use its remote-tracking branches as --track arguments, since they do not match refs/remotes/*. This patch removes the "refs/remotes/*" requirement for upstream branches, and replaces it with explicit checking of the refspecs for each remote to determine whether a given --track argument is a valid remote-tracking branch. This solves both of the above problems, since the matching refspec guarantees that there is a both a remote name and a remote branch name that can be used for the upstream config. However, this means that refs located within refs/remotes/* without a corresponding remote/refspec will no longer be usable as upstreams. The few existing tests which depended on this behavioral quirk has already been fixed in the preceding patches. This patch fixes the last remaining test failure in t2024-checkout-dwim. Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-21 23:52:05 +02:00
static int check_tracking_branch(struct remote *remote, void *cb_data)
{
char *tracking_branch = cb_data;
struct refspec_item query;
int res;
memset(&query, 0, sizeof(struct refspec_item));
branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/* The current code for validating tracking branches (e.g. the argument to the -t/--track option) hardcodes refs/heads/* and refs/remotes/* as the potential locations for tracking branches. This works with the refspecs created by "git clone" or "git remote add", but is suboptimal in other cases: - If "refs/remotes/foo/bar" exists without any association to a remote (i.e. there is no remote named "foo", or no remote with a refspec that matches "refs/remotes/foo/bar"), then it is impossible to set up a valid upstream config that tracks it. Currently, the code defaults to using "refs/remotes/foo/bar" from repo "." as the upstream, which works, but is probably not what the user had in mind when running "git branch baz --track foo/bar". - If the user has tweaked the fetch refspec for a remote to put its remote-tracking branches outside of refs/remotes/*, e.g. by running git config remote.foo.fetch "+refs/heads/*:refs/foo_stuff/*" then the current code will refuse to use its remote-tracking branches as --track arguments, since they do not match refs/remotes/*. This patch removes the "refs/remotes/*" requirement for upstream branches, and replaces it with explicit checking of the refspecs for each remote to determine whether a given --track argument is a valid remote-tracking branch. This solves both of the above problems, since the matching refspec guarantees that there is a both a remote name and a remote branch name that can be used for the upstream config. However, this means that refs located within refs/remotes/* without a corresponding remote/refspec will no longer be usable as upstreams. The few existing tests which depended on this behavioral quirk has already been fixed in the preceding patches. This patch fixes the last remaining test failure in t2024-checkout-dwim. Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-21 23:52:05 +02:00
query.dst = tracking_branch;
res = !remote_find_tracking(remote, &query);
free(query.src);
return res;
branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/* The current code for validating tracking branches (e.g. the argument to the -t/--track option) hardcodes refs/heads/* and refs/remotes/* as the potential locations for tracking branches. This works with the refspecs created by "git clone" or "git remote add", but is suboptimal in other cases: - If "refs/remotes/foo/bar" exists without any association to a remote (i.e. there is no remote named "foo", or no remote with a refspec that matches "refs/remotes/foo/bar"), then it is impossible to set up a valid upstream config that tracks it. Currently, the code defaults to using "refs/remotes/foo/bar" from repo "." as the upstream, which works, but is probably not what the user had in mind when running "git branch baz --track foo/bar". - If the user has tweaked the fetch refspec for a remote to put its remote-tracking branches outside of refs/remotes/*, e.g. by running git config remote.foo.fetch "+refs/heads/*:refs/foo_stuff/*" then the current code will refuse to use its remote-tracking branches as --track arguments, since they do not match refs/remotes/*. This patch removes the "refs/remotes/*" requirement for upstream branches, and replaces it with explicit checking of the refspecs for each remote to determine whether a given --track argument is a valid remote-tracking branch. This solves both of the above problems, since the matching refspec guarantees that there is a both a remote name and a remote branch name that can be used for the upstream config. However, this means that refs located within refs/remotes/* without a corresponding remote/refspec will no longer be usable as upstreams. The few existing tests which depended on this behavioral quirk has already been fixed in the preceding patches. This patch fixes the last remaining test failure in t2024-checkout-dwim. Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-21 23:52:05 +02:00
}
static int validate_remote_tracking_branch(char *ref)
{
return !for_each_remote(check_tracking_branch, ref);
}
static const char upstream_not_branch[] =
N_("cannot set up tracking information; starting point '%s' is not a branch");
static const char upstream_missing[] =
N_("the requested upstream branch '%s' does not exist");
static const char upstream_advice[] =
N_("\n"
"If you are planning on basing your work on an upstream\n"
"branch that already exists at the remote, you may need to\n"
"run \"git fetch\" to retrieve it.\n"
"\n"
"If you are planning to push out a new local branch that\n"
"will track its remote counterpart, you may want to use\n"
"\"git push -u\" to set the upstream config as you push.");
/**
* DWIMs a user-provided ref to determine the starting point for a
* branch and validates it, where:
*
* - r is the repository to validate the branch for
*
* - start_name is the ref that we would like to test. This is
* expanded with DWIM and assigned to out_real_ref.
*
* - track is the tracking mode of the new branch. If tracking is
* explicitly requested, start_name must be a branch (because
* otherwise start_name cannot be tracked)
*
* - out_oid is an out parameter containing the object_id of start_name
*
* - out_real_ref is an out parameter containing the full, 'real' form
* of start_name e.g. refs/heads/main instead of main
*
*/
static void dwim_branch_start(struct repository *r, const char *start_name,
enum branch_track track, char **out_real_ref,
struct object_id *out_oid)
{
struct commit *commit;
struct object_id oid;
char *real_ref;
int explicit_tracking = 0;
if (track == BRANCH_TRACK_EXPLICIT || track == BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE)
explicit_tracking = 1;
real_ref = NULL;
libs: use "struct repository *" argument, not "the_repository" As can easily be seen from grepping in our sources, we had these uses of "the_repository" in various library code in cases where the function in question was already getting a "struct repository *" argument. Let's use that argument instead. Out of these changes only the changes to "cache-tree.c", "commit-reach.c", "shallow.c" and "upload-pack.c" would have cleanly applied before the migration away from the "repo_*()" wrapper macros in the preceding commits. The rest aren't new, as we'd previously implicitly refer to "the_repository", but it's now more obvious that we were doing the wrong thing all along, and should have used the parameter instead. The change to change "get_index_format_default(the_repository)" in "read-cache.c" to use the "r" variable instead should arguably have been part of [1], or in the subsequent cleanup in [2]. Let's do it here, as can be seen from the initial code in [3] it's not important that we use "the_repository" there, but would prefer to always use the current repository. This change excludes the "the_repository" use in "upload-pack.c"'s upload_pack_advertise(), as the in-flight [4] makes that change. 1. ee1f0c242ef (read-cache: add index.skipHash config option, 2023-01-06) 2. 6269f8eaad0 (treewide: always have a valid "index_state.repo" member, 2023-01-17) 3. 7211b9e7534 (repo-settings: consolidate some config settings, 2019-08-13) 4. <Y/hbUsGPVNAxTdmS@coredump.intra.peff.net> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-03-28 15:58:58 +02:00
if (repo_get_oid_mb(r, start_name, &oid)) {
if (explicit_tracking) {
int code = die_message(_(upstream_missing), start_name);
advise_if_enabled(ADVICE_SET_UPSTREAM_FAILURE,
_(upstream_advice));
exit(code);
}
die(_("not a valid object name: '%s'"), start_name);
}
libs: use "struct repository *" argument, not "the_repository" As can easily be seen from grepping in our sources, we had these uses of "the_repository" in various library code in cases where the function in question was already getting a "struct repository *" argument. Let's use that argument instead. Out of these changes only the changes to "cache-tree.c", "commit-reach.c", "shallow.c" and "upload-pack.c" would have cleanly applied before the migration away from the "repo_*()" wrapper macros in the preceding commits. The rest aren't new, as we'd previously implicitly refer to "the_repository", but it's now more obvious that we were doing the wrong thing all along, and should have used the parameter instead. The change to change "get_index_format_default(the_repository)" in "read-cache.c" to use the "r" variable instead should arguably have been part of [1], or in the subsequent cleanup in [2]. Let's do it here, as can be seen from the initial code in [3] it's not important that we use "the_repository" there, but would prefer to always use the current repository. This change excludes the "the_repository" use in "upload-pack.c"'s upload_pack_advertise(), as the in-flight [4] makes that change. 1. ee1f0c242ef (read-cache: add index.skipHash config option, 2023-01-06) 2. 6269f8eaad0 (treewide: always have a valid "index_state.repo" member, 2023-01-17) 3. 7211b9e7534 (repo-settings: consolidate some config settings, 2019-08-13) 4. <Y/hbUsGPVNAxTdmS@coredump.intra.peff.net> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2023-03-28 15:58:58 +02:00
switch (repo_dwim_ref(r, start_name, strlen(start_name), &oid,
&real_ref, 0)) {
case 0:
/* Not branching from any existing branch */
if (explicit_tracking)
die(_(upstream_not_branch), start_name);
break;
case 1:
/* Unique completion -- good, only if it is a real branch */
if (!starts_with(real_ref, "refs/heads/") &&
branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of refs/remotes/* The current code for validating tracking branches (e.g. the argument to the -t/--track option) hardcodes refs/heads/* and refs/remotes/* as the potential locations for tracking branches. This works with the refspecs created by "git clone" or "git remote add", but is suboptimal in other cases: - If "refs/remotes/foo/bar" exists without any association to a remote (i.e. there is no remote named "foo", or no remote with a refspec that matches "refs/remotes/foo/bar"), then it is impossible to set up a valid upstream config that tracks it. Currently, the code defaults to using "refs/remotes/foo/bar" from repo "." as the upstream, which works, but is probably not what the user had in mind when running "git branch baz --track foo/bar". - If the user has tweaked the fetch refspec for a remote to put its remote-tracking branches outside of refs/remotes/*, e.g. by running git config remote.foo.fetch "+refs/heads/*:refs/foo_stuff/*" then the current code will refuse to use its remote-tracking branches as --track arguments, since they do not match refs/remotes/*. This patch removes the "refs/remotes/*" requirement for upstream branches, and replaces it with explicit checking of the refspecs for each remote to determine whether a given --track argument is a valid remote-tracking branch. This solves both of the above problems, since the matching refspec guarantees that there is a both a remote name and a remote branch name that can be used for the upstream config. However, this means that refs located within refs/remotes/* without a corresponding remote/refspec will no longer be usable as upstreams. The few existing tests which depended on this behavioral quirk has already been fixed in the preceding patches. This patch fixes the last remaining test failure in t2024-checkout-dwim. Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-04-21 23:52:05 +02:00
validate_remote_tracking_branch(real_ref)) {
if (explicit_tracking)
die(_(upstream_not_branch), start_name);
else
FREE_AND_NULL(real_ref);
}
break;
default:
die(_("ambiguous object name: '%s'"), start_name);
break;
}
if (!(commit = lookup_commit_reference(r, &oid)))
die(_("not a valid branch point: '%s'"), start_name);
if (out_real_ref) {
*out_real_ref = real_ref;
real_ref = NULL;
}
if (out_oid)
oidcpy(out_oid, &commit->object.oid);
FREE_AND_NULL(real_ref);
}
void create_branch(struct repository *r,
const char *name, const char *start_name,
int force, int clobber_head_ok, int reflog,
int quiet, enum branch_track track, int dry_run)
{
struct object_id oid;
char *real_ref;
struct strbuf ref = STRBUF_INIT;
int forcing = 0;
struct ref_transaction *transaction;
struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
char *msg;
if (track == BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE)
BUG("'track' cannot be BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE. Did you mean to call dwim_and_setup_tracking()?");
if (clobber_head_ok && !force)
BUG("'clobber_head_ok' can only be used with 'force'");
if (clobber_head_ok ?
validate_branchname(name, &ref) :
validate_new_branchname(name, &ref, force)) {
forcing = 1;
}
dwim_branch_start(r, start_name, track, &real_ref, &oid);
if (dry_run)
goto cleanup;
if (reflog)
log_all_ref_updates = LOG_REFS_NORMAL;
if (forcing)
msg = xstrfmt("branch: Reset to %s", start_name);
else
msg = xstrfmt("branch: Created from %s", start_name);
transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
if (!transaction ||
ref_transaction_update(transaction, ref.buf,
&oid, forcing ? NULL : null_oid(),
0, msg, &err) ||
ref_transaction_commit(transaction, &err))
die("%s", err.buf);
ref_transaction_free(transaction);
strbuf_release(&err);
free(msg);
if (real_ref && track)
setup_tracking(ref.buf + 11, real_ref, track, quiet);
cleanup:
strbuf_release(&ref);
free(real_ref);
}
void dwim_and_setup_tracking(struct repository *r, const char *new_ref,
const char *orig_ref, enum branch_track track,
int quiet)
{
char *real_orig_ref = NULL;
dwim_branch_start(r, orig_ref, track, &real_orig_ref, NULL);
setup_tracking(new_ref, real_orig_ref, track, quiet);
free(real_orig_ref);
}
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
/**
* Creates a branch in a submodule by calling
* create_branches_recursively() in a child process. The child process
* is necessary because install_branch_config_multiple_remotes() (which
* is called by setup_tracking()) does not support writing configs to
* submodules.
*/
static int submodule_create_branch(struct repository *r,
const struct submodule *submodule,
const char *name, const char *start_oid,
const char *tracking_name, int force,
int reflog, int quiet,
enum branch_track track, int dry_run)
{
int ret = 0;
struct child_process child = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
struct strbuf child_err = STRBUF_INIT;
struct strbuf out_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
char *out_prefix = xstrfmt("submodule '%s': ", submodule->name);
child.git_cmd = 1;
child.err = -1;
child.stdout_to_stderr = 1;
prepare_other_repo_env(&child.env, r->gitdir);
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
/*
* submodule_create_branch() is indirectly invoked by "git
* branch", but we cannot invoke "git branch" in the child
* process. "git branch" accepts a branch name and start point,
* where the start point is assumed to provide both the OID
* (start_oid) and the branch to use for tracking
* (tracking_name). But when recursing through submodules,
* start_oid and tracking name need to be specified separately
* (see create_branches_recursively()).
*/
strvec_pushl(&child.args, "submodule--helper", "create-branch", NULL);
if (dry_run)
strvec_push(&child.args, "--dry-run");
if (force)
strvec_push(&child.args, "--force");
if (quiet)
strvec_push(&child.args, "--quiet");
if (reflog)
strvec_push(&child.args, "--create-reflog");
switch (track) {
case BRANCH_TRACK_NEVER:
strvec_push(&child.args, "--no-track");
break;
case BRANCH_TRACK_ALWAYS:
case BRANCH_TRACK_EXPLICIT:
strvec_push(&child.args, "--track=direct");
break;
case BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE:
BUG("BRANCH_TRACK_OVERRIDE cannot be used when creating a branch.");
break;
case BRANCH_TRACK_INHERIT:
strvec_push(&child.args, "--track=inherit");
break;
case BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED:
/* Default for "git checkout". Do not pass --track. */
case BRANCH_TRACK_REMOTE:
/* Default for "git branch". Do not pass --track. */
branch: new autosetupmerge option 'simple' for matching branches With the default push.default option, "simple", beginners are protected from accidentally pushing to the "wrong" branch in centralized workflows: if the remote tracking branch they would push to does not have the same name as the local branch, and they try to do a "default push", they get an error and explanation with options. There is a particular centralized workflow where this often happens: a user branches to a new local topic branch from an existing remote branch, eg with "checkout -b feature1 origin/master". With the default branch.autosetupmerge configuration (value "true"), git will automatically add origin/master as the upstream tracking branch. When the user pushes with a default "git push", with the intention of pushing their (new) topic branch to the remote, they get an error, and (amongst other things) a suggestion to run "git push origin HEAD". If they follow this suggestion the push succeeds, but on subsequent default pushes they continue to get an error - so eventually they figure out to add "-u" to change the tracking branch, or they spelunk the push.default config doc as proposed and set it to "current", or some GUI tooling does one or the other of these things for them. When one of their coworkers later works on the same topic branch, they don't get any of that "weirdness". They just "git checkout feature1" and everything works exactly as they expect, with the shared remote branch set up as remote tracking branch, and push and pull working out of the box. The "stable state" for this way of working is that local branches have the same-name remote tracking branch (origin/feature1 in this example), and multiple people can work on that remote feature branch at the same time, trusting "git pull" to merge or rebase as required for them to be able to push their interim changes to that same feature branch on that same remote. (merging from the upstream "master" branch, and merging back to it, are separate more involved processes in this flow). There is a problem in this flow/way of working, however, which is that the first user, when they first branched from origin/master, ended up with the "wrong" remote tracking branch (different from the stable state). For a while, before they pushed (and maybe longer, if they don't use -u/--set-upstream), their "git pull" wasn't getting other users' changes to the feature branch - it was getting any changes from the remote "master" branch instead (a completely different class of changes!) An experienced git user might say "well yeah, that's what it means to have the remote tracking branch set to origin/master!" - but the original user above didn't *ask* to have the remote master branch added as remote tracking branch - that just happened automatically when they branched their feature branch. They didn't necessarily even notice or understand the meaning of the "set up to track 'origin/master'" message when they created the branch - especially if they are using a GUI. Looking at how to fix this, you might think "OK, so disable auto setup of remote tracking - set branch.autosetupmerge to false" - but that will inconvenience the *second* user in this story - the one who just wanted to start working on the topic branch. The first and second users swap roles at different points in time of course - they should both have a sane configuration that does the right thing in both situations. Make this "branches have the same name locally as on the remote" workflow less painful / more obvious by introducing a new branch.autosetupmerge option called "simple", to match the same-name "push.default" option that makes similar assumptions. This new option automatically sets up tracking in a *subset* of the current default situations: when the original ref is a remote tracking branch *and* has the same branch name on the remote (as the new local branch name). Update the error displayed when the 'push.default=simple' configuration rejects a mismatching-upstream-name default push, to offer this new branch.autosetupmerge option that will prevent this class of error. With this new configuration, in the example situation above, the first user does *not* get origin/master set up as the tracking branch for the new local branch. If they "git pull" in their new local-only branch, they get an error explaining there is no upstream branch - which makes sense and is helpful. If they "git push", they get an error explaining how to push *and* suggesting they specify --set-upstream - which is exactly the right thing to do for them. This new option is likely not appropriate for users intentionally implementing a "triangular workflow" with a shared upstream tracking branch, that they "git pull" in and a "private" feature branch that they push/force-push to just for remote safe-keeping until they are ready to push up to the shared branch explicitly/separately. Such users are likely to prefer keeping the current default merge.autosetupmerge=true behavior, and change their push.default to "current". Also extend the existing branch tests with three new cases testing this option - the obvious matching-name and non-matching-name cases, and also a non-matching-ref-type case. The matching-name case needs to temporarily create an independent repo to fetch from, as the general strategy of using the local repo as the remote in these tests precludes locally branching with the same name as in the "remote". Signed-off-by: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-04-29 11:56:44 +02:00
case BRANCH_TRACK_SIMPLE:
/* Config-driven only. Do not pass --track. */
break;
}
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
strvec_pushl(&child.args, name, start_oid, tracking_name, NULL);
if ((ret = start_command(&child)))
return ret;
ret = finish_command(&child);
strbuf_read(&child_err, child.err, 0);
strbuf_add_lines(&out_buf, out_prefix, child_err.buf, child_err.len);
if (ret)
fprintf(stderr, "%s", out_buf.buf);
else
printf("%s", out_buf.buf);
strbuf_release(&child_err);
strbuf_release(&out_buf);
return ret;
}
void create_branches_recursively(struct repository *r, const char *name,
const char *start_committish,
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
const char *tracking_name, int force,
int reflog, int quiet, enum branch_track track,
int dry_run)
{
int i = 0;
char *branch_point = NULL;
struct object_id super_oid;
struct submodule_entry_list submodule_entry_list;
/* Perform dwim on start_committish to get super_oid and branch_point. */
dwim_branch_start(r, start_committish, BRANCH_TRACK_NEVER,
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
&branch_point, &super_oid);
/*
* If we were not given an explicit name to track, then assume we are at
* the top level and, just like the non-recursive case, the tracking
* name is the branch point.
*/
if (!tracking_name)
tracking_name = branch_point;
submodules_of_tree(r, &super_oid, &submodule_entry_list);
/*
* Before creating any branches, first check that the branch can
* be created in every submodule.
*/
for (i = 0; i < submodule_entry_list.entry_nr; i++) {
if (!submodule_entry_list.entries[i].repo) {
int code = die_message(
_("submodule '%s': unable to find submodule"),
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].submodule->name);
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_SUBMODULES_NOT_UPDATED))
advise(_("You may try updating the submodules using 'git checkout --no-recurse-submodules %s && git submodule update --init'"),
start_committish);
exit(code);
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
}
if (submodule_create_branch(
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].repo,
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].submodule, name,
oid_to_hex(&submodule_entry_list.entries[i]
.name_entry->oid),
tracking_name, force, reflog, quiet, track, 1))
die(_("submodule '%s': cannot create branch '%s'"),
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].submodule->name,
name);
}
create_branch(r, name, start_committish, force, 0, reflog, quiet,
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
BRANCH_TRACK_NEVER, dry_run);
if (dry_run)
return;
/*
* NEEDSWORK If tracking was set up in the superproject but not the
* submodule, users might expect "git branch --recurse-submodules" to
* fail or give a warning, but this is not yet implemented because it is
* tedious to determine whether or not tracking was set up in the
* superproject.
*/
if (track)
setup_tracking(name, tracking_name, track, quiet);
branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation To improve the submodules UX, we would like to teach Git to handle branches in submodules. Start this process by teaching "git branch" the --recurse-submodules option so that "git branch --recurse-submodules topic" will create the `topic` branch in the superproject and its submodules. Although this commit does not introduce breaking changes, it does not work well with existing --recurse-submodules commands because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to the submodule ref store, but most commands only consider the superproject gitlink and ignore the submodule ref store. For example, "git checkout --recurse-submodules" will check out the commits in the superproject gitlinks (and put the submodules in detached HEAD) instead of checking out the submodule branches. Because of this, this commit introduces a new configuration value, `submodule.propagateBranches`. The plan is for Git commands to prioritize submodule ref store information over superproject gitlinks if this value is true. Because "git branch --recurse-submodules" writes to submodule ref stores, for the sake of clarity, it will not function unless this configuration value is set. This commit also includes changes that support working with submodules from a superproject commit because "branch --recurse-submodules" (and future commands) need to read .gitmodules and gitlinks from the superproject commit, but submodules are typically read from the filesystem's .gitmodules and the index's gitlinks. These changes are: * add a submodules_of_tree() helper that gives the relevant information of an in-tree submodule (e.g. path and oid) and initializes the repository * add is_tree_submodule_active() by adding a treeish_name parameter to is_submodule_active() * add the "submoduleNotUpdated" advice to advise users to update the submodules in their trees Incidentally, fix an incorrect usage string that combined the 'list' usage of git branch (-l) with the 'create' usage; this string has been incorrect since its inception, a8dfd5eac4 (Make builtin-branch.c use parse_options., 2007-10-07). Helped-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2022-01-29 01:04:45 +01:00
for (i = 0; i < submodule_entry_list.entry_nr; i++) {
if (submodule_create_branch(
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].repo,
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].submodule, name,
oid_to_hex(&submodule_entry_list.entries[i]
.name_entry->oid),
tracking_name, force, reflog, quiet, track, 0))
die(_("submodule '%s': cannot create branch '%s'"),
submodule_entry_list.entries[i].submodule->name,
name);
repo_clear(submodule_entry_list.entries[i].repo);
}
}
void remove_merge_branch_state(struct repository *r)
{
unlink(git_path_merge_head(r));
unlink(git_path_merge_rr(r));
unlink(git_path_merge_msg(r));
unlink(git_path_merge_mode(r));
refs_delete_ref(get_main_ref_store(r), "", "AUTO_MERGE",
NULL, REF_NO_DEREF);
save_autostash_ref(r, "MERGE_AUTOSTASH");
}
void remove_branch_state(struct repository *r, int verbose)
{
sequencer_post_commit_cleanup(r, verbose);
unlink(git_path_squash_msg(r));
remove_merge_branch_state(r);
}
2016-04-22 15:01:33 +02:00
void die_if_checked_out(const char *branch, int ignore_current_worktree)
{
struct worktree **worktrees = get_worktrees();
for (int i = 0; worktrees[i]; i++) {
if (worktrees[i]->is_current && ignore_current_worktree)
continue;
if (is_shared_symref(worktrees[i], "HEAD", branch)) {
skip_prefix(branch, "refs/heads/", &branch);
die(_("'%s' is already used by worktree at '%s'"),
branch, worktrees[i]->path);
}
}
free_worktrees(worktrees);
}