Add preliminary support for detection of the build plaform, and reporting
of same with the `git version --build-options' command. This can be useful
for bug reporting, to distinguish between 32 and 64-bit builds for
example.
The current implementation can only distinguish between x86 and x86_64.
This will be extended in future patches. In addition, all 32-bit variants
(i686, i586, etc.) are collapsed into `x86'. An example of the output is:
$ git version --build-options
git version 2.9.3.windows.2.826.g06c0f2f
sizeof-long: 4
machine: x86_64
The label of `machine' was chosen so the new information will approximate
the output of `uname -m'.
Signed-off-by: Adric Norris <landstander668@gmail.com>
Correct an age-old calco (is that a typo-like word for calc)
in the documentation.
* ls/packet-line-protocol-doc-fix:
pack-protocol: fix maximum pkt-line size
This series of branches introduces the git-rebase--helper, a builtin
helping to accelerate the interactive rebase dramatically.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This operation has quadratic complexity, which is especially painful
on Windows, where shell scripts are *already* slow (mainly due to the
overhead of the POSIX emulation layer).
Let's reimplement this with linear complexity (using a hash map to
match the commits' subject lines) for the common case; Sadly, the
fixup/squash feature's design neglected performance considerations,
allowing arbitrary prefixes (read: `fixup! hell` will match the
commit subject `hello world`), which means that we are stuck with
quadratic performance in the worst case.
The reimplemented logic also happens to fix a bug where commented-out
lines (representing empty patches) were dropped by the previous code.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The `git commit --fixup` command unwraps wrapped onelines when
constructing the commit message, without wrapping the result.
We need to make sure that `git rebase --autosquash` keeps handling such
cases correctly, in particular since we are about to move the autosquash
handling into the rebase--helper.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
In particular on Windows, where shell scripts are even more expensive
than on MacOSX or Linux, it makes sense to move a loop that forks
Git at least once for every line in the todo list into a builtin.
Note: The original code did not try to skip unnecessary picks of root
commits but punts instead (probably --root was not considered common
enough of a use case to bother optimizing). We do the same, for now.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
In particular on Windows, where shell scripts are even more expensive
than on MacOSX or Linux, it makes sense to move a loop that forks
Git at least once for every line in the todo list into a builtin.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
These tests were a bit anal about the *exact* warning/error message
printed by git rebase. But those messages are intended for the *end
user*, therefore it does not make sense to test so rigidly for the
*exact* wording.
In the following, we will reimplement the missing commits check in
the sequencer, with slightly different words.
So let's just test for the parts in the warning/error message that
we *really* care about, nothing more, nothing less.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
To avoid problems with short SHA-1s that become non-unique during the
rebase, we rewrite the todo script with short/long SHA-1s before and
after letting the user edit the script. Since SHA-1s are not intuitive
for humans, rebase -i also provides the onelines (commit message
subjects) in the script, purely for the user's convenience.
It is very possible to generate a todo script via different means than
rebase -i and then to let rebase -i run with it; In this case, these
onelines are not required.
And this is where the expand/collapse machinery has a bug: it *expects*
that oneline, and failing to find one reuses the previous SHA-1 as
"oneline".
It was most likely an oversight, and made implementation in the (quite
limiting) shell script language less convoluted. However, we are about
to reimplement performance-critical parts in C (and due to spawning a
git.exe process for every single line of the todo script, the
expansion/collapsing of the SHA-1s *is* performance-hampering on
Windows), therefore let's fix this bug to make cross-validation with the
C version of that functionality possible.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The commands used to be indented, and it is nice to look at, but when we
transform the SHA-1s, the indentation is removed. So let's do away with it.
For the moment, at least: when we will use the upcoming rebase--helper
to transform the SHA-1s, we *will* keep the indentation and can
reintroduce it. Yet, to be able to validate the rebase--helper against
the output of the current shell script version, we need to remove the
extra indentation.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This is crucial to improve performance on Windows, as the speed is now
mostly dominated by the SHA-1 transformation (because it spawns a new
rev-parse process for *every* line, and spawning processes is pretty
slow from Git for Windows' MSYS2 Bash).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This is substantially faster, improving the speedup relative to the
shell script version of the interactive rebase from 2x to 3x on Windows.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Now that the sequencer learned to process a "normal" interactive rebase,
we use it. The original shell script is still used for "non-normal"
interactive rebases, i.e. when --root or --preserve-merges was passed.
Please note that the --root option (via the $squash_onto variable) needs
special handling only for the very first command, hence it is still okay
to use the helper upon continue/skip.
Also please note that the --no-ff setting is volatile, i.e. when the
interactive rebase is interrupted at any stage, there is no record of
it. Therefore, we have to pass it from the shell script to the
rebase--helper.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Git's interactive rebase is still implemented as a shell script, despite
its complexity. This implies that it suffers from the portability point
of view, from lack of expressibility, and of course also from
performance. The latter issue is particularly serious on Windows, where
we pay a hefty price for relying so much on POSIX.
Unfortunately, being such a huge shell script also means that we missed
the train when it would have been relatively easy to port it to C, and
instead piled feature upon feature onto that poor script that originally
never intended to be more than a slightly pimped cherry-pick in a loop.
To open the road toward better performance (in addition to all the other
benefits of C over shell scripts), let's just start *somewhere*.
The approach taken here is to add a builtin helper that at first intends
to take care of the parts of the interactive rebase that are most
affected by the performance penalties mentioned above.
Once that is in place, we can work gradually on tackling the rest of the
technical debt.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The shell script version of the interactive rebase has a very specific
final message. Teach the sequencer to print the same.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
For the benefit of e.g. the shell prompt, the interactive rebase not
only displays the progress for the user to see, but also writes it into
the msgnum/end files in the state directory.
Teach the sequencer this new trick.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The interactive rebase keeps the user informed about its progress.
If the sequencer wants to do the grunt work of the interactive
rebase, it also needs to show that progress.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This is the behavior of the shell script version of the interactive
rebase, by using the `output` function defined in `git-rebase.sh`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This is the behavior of the shell script version of the interactive
rebase, by using the `output` function defined in `git-rebase.sh`.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This will be needed to hide the output of `git commit` when the
sequencer handles an interactive rebase's script.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
In the upcoming patch, we will support rebase -i's progress
reporting. The progress skips comments but counts 'noop's.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The parsing part of a 'drop' command is almost identical to parsing a
'pick', while the operation is the same as that of a 'noop'.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The interactive rebase has the very special magic that a cherry-pick
that exits with a status different from 0 and 1 signifies a failure to
even record that a cherry-pick was started.
This can happen e.g. when a fast-forward fails because it would
overwrite untracked files.
In that case, we must reschedule the command that we thought we already
had at least started successfully.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The sequencer already has an idea about using different merge
strategies. We just piggy-back on top of that, using rebase -i's
own settings, when running the sequencer in interactive rebase mode.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Git's `rebase` command inspects the `rebase.autostash` config setting
to determine whether it should stash any uncommitted changes before
rebasing and re-apply them afterwards.
As we introduce more bits and pieces to let the sequencer act as
interactive rebase's backend, here is the part that adds support for
the autostash feature.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
When continuing after a `pick` command failed, we want that commit
to show up in the rewritten-list (and its notes to be rewritten), too.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
When rebasing commits that have commit notes attached, the interactive
rebase rewrites those notes faithfully at the end. The sequencer must
do this, too, if it wishes to do interactive rebase's job.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
We already used the same reflog message as the scripted version of rebase
-i when finishing. With this commit, we do that also for all the commands
before that.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This makes the code DRYer, with the obvious benefit that we can enhance
the code further in a single place.
We can also reuse the functionality elsewhere by calling this new
function.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The sequencer already knew how to fast-forward instead of
cherry-picking, if possible.
We want to continue to do this, of course, but in case of the 'reword'
command, we will need to call `git commit` after fast-forwarding.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This is now trivial, as all the building blocks are in place: all we need
to do is to flip the "edit" switch when committing.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Just like the interactive rebase, we want to leave a 'patch' file for
further inspection by the user (even if we never tried to actually apply
that patch, since we're cherry-picking instead).
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
An interactive rebase operates on a detached HEAD (to keep the reflog
of the original branch relatively clean), and updates the branch only
at the end.
Now that the sequencer learns to perform interactive rebases, it also
needs to learn the trick to update the branch before removing the
directory containing the state of the interactive rebase.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
When the last command of an interactive rebase fails, the user needs to
resolve the problem and then continue the interactive rebase. Naturally,
the todo script is empty by then. So let's not complain about that!
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
When a cherry-pick continues without a "todo script", the intention is
simply to pick a single commit.
However, when an interactive rebase is continued without a "todo
script", it means that the last command has been completed and that we
now need to clean up.
This commit guards the revert/cherry-pick specific steps so that they
are not executed in rebase -i mode.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
