git-gui: respect core.hooksPath, falling back to .git/hooks #361
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] |
![gitgitgadget[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12836?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
dscho
force-pushed
the
git-gui-hooks-path
branch
from
eca193f to
c101422
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] |
dscho
force-pushed
the
git-gui-hooks-path
branch
from
c101422 to
65c2fa3
Compare
|
/submit |
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] |
Since v2.9.0, Git knows about the config variable core.hookspath that allows overriding the path to the directory containing the Git hooks. Since v2.10.0, the `--git-path` option respects that config variable, too, so we may just as well use that command. Other paths inside `.git` are equally subject to differ from `<gitdir>/<path>`, i.e. inside worktrees, where _some_ paths live in the "gitdir" and some live in the "commondir" (i.e. the "gitdir" of the main worktree). For Git versions older than v2.5.0 (which was the first version to support the `--git-path` option for the `rev-parse` command), we simply fall back to the previous code. An original patch handled only the hooksPath setting, however, during the code submission it was deemed better to fix all call to the `gitdir` function. To avoid spawning a gazillion `git rev-parse --git-path` instances, we cache the returned paths, priming the cache upon startup in a single `git rev-parse invocation` with some paths (that have been determined via a typical startup and via grepping the source code for calls to the `gitdir` function). This fixes git-for-windows#1755 Initial-patch-by: Philipp Gortan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
dscho
force-pushed
the
git-gui-hooks-path
branch
from
65c2fa3 to
2f55d6f
Compare
|
/submit |
|
Submitted as [email protected] |
| @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ if {[tk windowingsystem] eq "aqua"} { | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Pratyush Yadav wrote (reply to this):
Hi Johannes,
Thanks for the re-roll. Some comments below...
On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
>
> Since v2.9.0, Git knows about the config variable core.hookspath that
> allows overriding the path to the directory containing the Git hooks.
>
> Since v2.10.0, the `--git-path` option respects that config variable,
> too, so we may just as well use that command.
>
> Other paths inside `.git` are equally subject to differ from
> `<gitdir>/<path>`, i.e. inside worktrees, where _some_ paths live in the
> "gitdir" and some live in the "commondir" (i.e. the "gitdir" of the main
> worktree).
>
> For Git versions older than v2.5.0 (which was the first version to
> support the `--git-path` option for the `rev-parse` command), we simply
> fall back to the previous code.
>
> An original patch handled only the hooksPath setting, however, during
> the code submission it was deemed better to fix all call to the `gitdir`
> function.
>
> To avoid spawning a gazillion `git rev-parse --git-path` instances, we
> cache the returned paths, priming the cache upon startup in a single
> `git rev-parse invocation` with some paths (that have been
> determined via a typical startup and via grepping the source code for
> calls to the `gitdir` function).
>
> This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/1755
>
> Initial-patch-by: Philipp Gortan <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>
> ---
> git-gui.sh | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-gui.sh b/git-gui.sh
> index fd476b6999..c684dc7ae1 100755
> --- a/git-gui.sh
> +++ b/git-gui.sh
> @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ if {[tk windowingsystem] eq "aqua"} {
>
> set _appname {Git Gui}
> set _gitdir {}
> +array set _gitdir_cache {}
> set _gitworktree {}
> set _isbare {}
> set _gitexec {}
> @@ -197,12 +198,59 @@ proc appname {} {
> return $_appname
> }
>
> +proc prime_gitdir_cache {} {
> + global _gitdir _gitdir_cache
> +
> + set gitdir_cmd [list git rev-parse --git-dir]
> +
> + # `--git-path` is only supported since Git v2.5.0
> + if {[package vcompare $::_git_version 2.5.0] >= 0} {
> + # This list was generated from a typical startup as well as from
> + # grepping through Git GUI's source code.
> + set gitdir_keys [list \
> + CHERRY_PICK_HEAD FETCH_HEAD GITGUI_BCK GITGUI_EDITMSG \
> + GITGUI_MSG HEAD hooks hooks/prepare-commit-msg \
> + index.lock info info/exclude logs MERGE_HEAD MERGE_MSG \
> + MERGE_RR objects "objects/4\[0-1\]/*" \
> + "objects/4\[0-3\]/*" objects/info \
> + objects/info/alternates objects/pack packed-refs \
> + PREPARE_COMMIT_MSG rebase-merge/head-name remotes \
> + rr-cache rr-cache/MERGE_RR SQUASH_MSG \
> + ]
> +
> + foreach key $gitdir_keys {
> + lappend gitdir_cmd --git-path $key
> + }
> + }
> +
> + set i -1
> + foreach path [split [eval $gitdir_cmd] "\n"] {
> + if {$i eq -1} {
> + set _gitdir $path
> + } else {
> + set _gitdir_cache([lindex $gitdir_keys $i]) $path
> + }
> + incr i
> + }
> +}
> +
> proc gitdir {args} {
> - global _gitdir
> + global _gitdir _gitdir_cache
> +
> if {$args eq {}} {
> return $_gitdir
> }
> - return [eval [list file join $_gitdir] $args]
> +
> + set args [eval [list file join] $args]
> + if {![info exists _gitdir_cache($args)]} {
> + if {[package vcompare $::_git_version 2.5.0] >= 0} {
> + set _gitdir_cache($args) [git rev-parse --git-path $args]
> + } else {
> + set _gitdir_cache($args) [file join $_gitdir $args]
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return $_gitdir_cache($args)
> }
>
> proc gitexec {args} {
> @@ -1242,7 +1290,7 @@ if {[catch {
> && [catch {
> # beware that from the .git dir this sets _gitdir to .
> # and _prefix to the empty string
> - set _gitdir [git rev-parse --git-dir]
> + prime_gitdir_cache
> set _prefix [git rev-parse --show-prefix]
> } err]} {
> load_config 1
Looks good till here.
> @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> global rescan_active file_states
> - global repo_config
> + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
>
> if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
>
> + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or choose
rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line or
hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
"ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumptions
about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after.
The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as someone
changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future passes
a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
`ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this.
But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason not
to), we can get away with just something like:
proc ui_do_rescan {} {
rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
}
Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the rescan
being finished, something like this would also work fine:
proc ui_do_rescan {} {
rescan ui_ready
prime_gitdir_cache
}
This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan` is
asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the status
bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing.
I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on using
the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
performance (at least in theory).
Thoughts?
> + array unset _gitdir_cache
> + prime_gitdir_cache
> + }
> +
> repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> && $newType eq {normal}
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Johannes Schindelin wrote (reply to this):
Hi Pratyush,
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > global rescan_active file_states
> > - global repo_config
> > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> >
> > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> >
> > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
>
> What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or choose
> rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line or
> hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
>
> Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
>
> But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumptions
> about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after.
> The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
>
> Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as someone
> changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future passes
> a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
>
> So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this.
> But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason not
> to), we can get away with just something like:
>
> proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> }
>
> Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the rescan
> being finished, something like this would also work fine:
>
> proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> rescan ui_ready
> prime_gitdir_cache
> }
That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
![lock_index read]} return` part.
I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If there
is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
That was the reason why I put the additional code into `rescan` rather
than into `ui_do_rescan()`.
Ciao,
Johannes
>
> This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan` is
> asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the status
> bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing.
>
> I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on using
> the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
> performance (at least in theory).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> > + array unset _gitdir_cache
> > + prime_gitdir_cache
> > + }
> > +
> > repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> > if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> > && $newType eq {normal}
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Pratyush Yadav wrote (reply to this):
On 12/10/19 11:24PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Pratyush,
>
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>
> > On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > > global rescan_active file_states
> > > - global repo_config
> > > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> > >
> > > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> > >
> > > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
> >
> > What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> > differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or choose
> > rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line or
> > hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
> >
> > Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> > "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
> >
> > But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumptions
> > about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after.
> > The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> > should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
> >
> > Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as someone
> > changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future passes
> > a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> > would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
> >
> > So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> > `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this.
> > But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason not
> > to), we can get away with just something like:
> >
> > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> > }
> >
> > Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the rescan
> > being finished, something like this would also work fine:
> >
> > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > rescan ui_ready
> > prime_gitdir_cache
> > }
>
> That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
> code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
> ![lock_index read]} return` part.
>
> I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If there
> is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
Good catch! In that case I suppose refreshing the cache in $after would
be the way to go (IOW, the former of my two suggestions). Anything
$after won't get executed if we return early from that check.
> That was the reason why I put the additional code into `rescan` rather
> than into `ui_do_rescan()`.
>
> Ciao,
> Johannes
>
> >
> > This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan` is
> > asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the status
> > bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing.
> >
> > I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on using
> > the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
> > performance (at least in theory).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > > + array unset _gitdir_cache
> > > + prime_gitdir_cache
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> > > if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> > > && $newType eq {normal}
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Johannes Schindelin wrote (reply to this):
Hi Pratyush,
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 12/10/19 11:24PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Hi Pratyush,
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > > > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > > > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > > > global rescan_active file_states
> > > > - global repo_config
> > > > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> > > >
> > > > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> > > >
> > > > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > > > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
> > >
> > > What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> > > differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or cho=
ose
> > > rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line=
or
> > > hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
> > >
> > > Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> > > "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
> > >
> > > But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumpti=
ons
> > > about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after=
.
> > > The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> > > should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
> > >
> > > Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as some=
one
> > > changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future pa=
sses
> > > a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> > > would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
> > >
> > > So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> > > `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this=
.
> > > But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason=
not
> > > to), we can get away with just something like:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> > > }
> > >
> > > Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the resc=
an
> > > being finished, something like this would also work fine:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan ui_ready
> > > prime_gitdir_cache
> > > }
> >
> > That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
> > code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
> > ![lock_index read]} return` part.
> >
> > I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If ther=
e
> > is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
>
> Good catch! In that case I suppose refreshing the cache in $after would
> be the way to go (IOW, the former of my two suggestions). Anything
> $after won't get executed if we return early from that check.
The obvious problem with that solution is that the `_gitdir` is reset
_after_ the rescan. In my solution, it is reset _before_, as I have no
idea how often the `_gitdir` values are used during a rescan (and if
none of they were, I would like to be very cautious to prepare for a
future where any of those `_gitdir` values _are_ used during a rescan).
So I am afraid that I find way too serious problems with both of your
proposed alternatives.
Ciao,
Johannes
>
> > That was the reason why I put the additional code into `rescan` rather
> > than into `ui_do_rescan()`.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> >
> > >
> > > This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan=
` is
> > > asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the statu=
s
> > > bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing=
.
> > >
> > > I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on u=
sing
> > > the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
> > > performance (at least in theory).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > + array unset _gitdir_cache
> > > > + prime_gitdir_cache
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> > > > if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> > > > && $newType eq {normal}
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
>
>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Johannes Schindelin wrote (reply to this):
Hi Pratyush,
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 12/10/19 11:24PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > > > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > > > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > > > global rescan_active file_states
> > > > - global repo_config
> > > > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> > > >
> > > > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> > > >
> > > > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > > > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
> > >
> > > What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> > > differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or cho=
ose
> > > rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line=
or
> > > hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
> > >
> > > Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> > > "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
> > >
> > > But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumpti=
ons
> > > about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after=
.
> > > The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> > > should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
> > >
> > > Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as some=
one
> > > changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future pa=
sses
> > > a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> > > would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
> > >
> > > So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> > > `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this=
.
> > > But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason=
not
> > > to), we can get away with just something like:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> > > }
> > >
> > > Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the resc=
an
> > > being finished, something like this would also work fine:
> > >
> > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > rescan ui_ready
> > > prime_gitdir_cache
> > > }
> >
> > That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
> > code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
> > ![lock_index read]} return` part.
> >
> > I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If ther=
e
> > is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
>
> Good catch! In that case I suppose refreshing the cache in $after would
> be the way to go (IOW, the former of my two suggestions). Anything
> $after won't get executed if we return early from that check.
But it also won't get executed before the actual rescan. Which is
precisely what I tried to ensure.
Ciao,
Johannes
>
> > That was the reason why I put the additional code into `rescan` rather
> > than into `ui_do_rescan()`.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> >
> > >
> > > This would allow us to do these two things in parallel since `rescan=
` is
> > > asynchronous. But that would also mean it is possible that the statu=
s
> > > bar would show "Ready" while `prime_gitdir_cache` is still executing=
.
> > >
> > > I can't really make up my mind on what is better. I'm inclining on u=
sing
> > > the latter way, effectively trading a bit of UI inconsistency for
> > > performance (at least in theory).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > + array unset _gitdir_cache
> > > > + prime_gitdir_cache
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > repository_state newType newHEAD newMERGE_HEAD
> > > > if {[string match amend* $commit_type]
> > > > && $newType eq {normal}
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav
>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the Git mailing list, Pratyush Yadav wrote (reply to this):
On 14/10/19 12:18AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Pratyush,
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>
> > On 12/10/19 11:24PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > Hi Pratyush,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 08/10/19 04:33AM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -1453,10 +1501,16 @@ proc rescan {after {honor_trustmtime 1}} {
> > > > > global HEAD PARENT MERGE_HEAD commit_type
> > > > > global ui_index ui_workdir ui_comm
> > > > > global rescan_active file_states
> > > > > - global repo_config
> > > > > + global repo_config _gitdir_cache
> > > > >
> > > > > if {$rescan_active > 0 || ![lock_index read]} return
> > > > >
> > > > > + # Only re-prime gitdir cache on a full rescan
> > > > > + if {$after ne "ui_ready"} {
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by a "full rescan"? I assume you use it as the
> > > > differentiator between `ui_do_rescan` (called when you hit F5 or choose
> > > > rescan from the menu) and `do_rescan` (called when you revert a line or
> > > > hunk), and a "full rescan" refers to `ui_do_rescan`.
> > > >
> > > > Well in that case, this check is incorrect. `do_rescan` passes only
> > > > "ui_ready" and `ui_do_rescan` passes "force_first_diff ui_ready".
> > > >
> > > > But either way, I'm not a big fan of this. This check makes assumptions
> > > > about the behaviour of its callers based on what they pass to $after.
> > > > The way I see it, $after should be a black box to `rescan`, and it
> > > > should make absolutely no assumptions about it.
> > > >
> > > > Doing it this way is really brittle, and would break as soon as someone
> > > > changes the behaviour of `ui_do_rescan`. If someone in the future passes
> > > > a different value in $after, this would stop working as intended and
> > > > would not refresh the cached list on a rescan.
> > > >
> > > > So, I think a better place for this if statement would be in
> > > > `ui_do_rescan`. This would mean adding a new function that does this.
> > > > But if we unset _gitdir_cache in prime_gitdir_cache (I see no reason not
> > > > to), we can get away with just something like:
> > > >
> > > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > > rescan {prime_gitdir_cache; ui_ready}
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Though since `prime_gitdir_cache` does not really depend on the rescan
> > > > being finished, something like this would also work fine:
> > > >
> > > > proc ui_do_rescan {} {
> > > > rescan ui_ready
> > > > prime_gitdir_cache
> > > > }
> > >
> > > That was my first attempt. However, there is a very important piece of
> > > code that is even still quoted above: that `if {$rescan_active > 0 ||
> > > ![lock_index read]} return` part.
> > >
> > > I do _not_ want to interfere with an actively-going-on rescan. If there
> > > is an active one, I don't want to re-prime the `_gitdir` cache.
> >
> > Good catch! In that case I suppose refreshing the cache in $after would
> > be the way to go (IOW, the former of my two suggestions). Anything
> > $after won't get executed if we return early from that check.
>
> The obvious problem with that solution is that the `_gitdir` is reset
> _after_ the rescan. In my solution, it is reset _before_, as I have no
> idea how often the `_gitdir` values are used during a rescan (and if
> none of they were, I would like to be very cautious to prepare for a
> future where any of those `_gitdir` values _are_ used during a rescan).
_gitdir values are used quite often during a rescan, so yes, this won't
work.
> So I am afraid that I find way too serious problems with both of your
> proposed alternatives.
One alternative I can see right now is adding another optional parameter
to `rescan` that controls whether we refresh the gitdir cache or not.
That parameter would default to 0/false. I'm not the biggest fan of
something like this, but it might be the easiest way to do it given the
constraints.
I also thought about trying to acquire the index lock in
`prime_gitdir_cache`, but that could create a race on the lock between
`prime_gitdir_cache` and `rescan`.
If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears, but otherwise, I maybe our
best bet is to just go with adding an optional parameter to `rescan`.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is yet another patch from Git for Windows.
Changes since v3:
Changes since v2:
git rev-parse --git-pathare now cached, and the cache is primed with the most common paths.Changes since v1:
gitdirjust for the hooks path, we now spawngit rev-parse --git-path [...]every timegitdiris called with arguments. This makes the code safer, although at the cost of potentially many spawned processes.Cc: Pratyush Yadav [email protected], Bert Wesarg [email protected]