The `--trailer` option takes a "<token>=<value>" argument, for example
--trailer "Acked-by=Bob"
And in this exampple it is understood that "Acked-by" is the <token>.
However, the user can use a shorter "ack" string by defining
configuration like
git config trailer.ack.key "Acked-by"
However, in the docs we define the above configuration as
trailer.<token>.key
so the <token> can mean either the longer "Acked-by" or the shorter
"ack".
Separate the two meanings of <token> into <key> and <keyAlias>, and
update the configuration syntax to say "trailer.<keyAlias>.key".
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The sentence does not mention the effect of configuration variables at
all, when they are actively used by default (unless --parse is
specified) to potentially add new trailers, without the user having to
always supply --trailer manually.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The phrase "join whitespace-continued values" requires some additional
context. For example, "whitespace" means newlines (not just space
characters), and "join" means to join only the multiple lines together
for a single trailer (and not that we are joining multiple trailers
together). That is, "join" means to convert
token: This is a very long value, with spaces and
newlines in it.
to
token: This is a very long value, with spaces and newlines in it.
and does not mean to convert
token: value1
token: value2
to
token: value1 value2.
Update the help text to resolve the above ambiguity. While we're add it,
update the docs to use similar language as the change in the help text.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For users who are skimming the docs to go straight to the individual
breakdown of each flag, it may not be clear why --parse is a convenience
alias (without them also looking at the other options that --parse turns
on). To save them the trouble of looking at the other options (and
computing what that would mean), describe a summary of the overall
effect.
Similarly update the area when we first mention --parse near the top of
the doc.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Use the phrase "configuration variables" instead of "rules" because
(1) we already say "configuration variables" in multiple
places in the docs (where the word "rules" is only used for describing
"--only-input" behavior and for an unrelated case of mentioning how
the trailers do not follow "rules for RFC 822 headers"), and
(2) this phrase is more specific than just "rules".
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Fix the help text to say "placement" instead of "action" because the
values are placements, not actions.
While we're at it, tweak the documentation to say "placements" instead
of "values", similar to how the existing language for "--if-exists" uses
the word "action" to describe both the syntax (with the phrase
"--if-exists <action>") and the possible values (with the phrase
"possible actions").
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The wording "all configuration variables" is misleading (the same could
be said to the descriptions of the "--[no-]if-exists" and the
"--[no-]if-missing" options). Specifying --where=value overrides only
the trailer.where variable and applicable trailer.<token>.where
variables, and --no-where stops the overriding of these variables.
Ditto for the other two with their relevant configuration variables.
Reported-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While the "--no-where" flag is tested, the "--no-if-exists" and
"--no-if-missing" flags are not, so add tests for them. But also add
tests for all "--no-*" flags to check their effects, both when (1) there
are relevant configuration variables set, and (2) they are not set.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Clarify how to pick a starting point for a new topic in the
SubmittingPatches document.
* la/doc-choose-starting-point-fixup:
SubmittingPatches: use of older maintenance tracks is an exception
SubmittingPatches: explain why 'next' and above are inappropriate base
SubmittingPatches: choice of base for fixing an older maintenance track
Rewrite the description of giving a custom command to the
submodule.<name>.update configuration variable.
* pv/doc-submodule-update-settings:
doc: highlight that .gitmodules does not support !command
Clarify how to choose the starting point for a new topic in
developer guidance document.
* la/doc-choose-starting-point:
SubmittingPatches: simplify guidance for choosing a starting point
SubmittingPatches: emphasize need to communicate non-default starting points
SubmittingPatches: de-emphasize branches as starting points
SubmittingPatches: discuss subsystems separately from git.git
SubmittingPatches: reword awkward phrasing
"git branch --list --format=<format>" and friends are taught
a new "%(describe)" placeholder.
* ks/ref-filter-describe:
ref-filter: add new "describe" atom
ref-filter: add multiple-option parsing functions
Finding mistakes in and improving your own patches is a good idea,
but doing so too quickly is being inconsiderate to reviewers who
have just seen the initial iteration and taking their time to review
it. Encourage new developers to perform such a self review before
they send out their patches, not after. After sending a patch that
they immediately found mistakes in, they are welcome to comment on
them, mentioning what and how they plan to improve them in an
updated version, before sending out their updates.
Helped-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Helped-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While we could technically fix each and every bug on top of the
commit that introduced it, it is not necessarily practical. For
trivial and low-value bugfixes, it often is simpler and sufficient
to just fix it in the current maintenance track, leaving the bug
unfixed in the older maintenance tracks.
Demote the "use older maintenance track to fix old bugs" as a side
note, and explain that the choice is used only in exceptional cases.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 'next' branch is primarily meant to be a testing ground to make
sure that topics that are reasonably well done work well together.
Building a new work on it would mean everything that was already in
'next' must have graduated to 'master' before the new work can also
be merged to 'master', and that is why we do not encourage basing
new work on 'next'.
Helped-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When working on an high-value bugfix that must be given to ancient
maintenance tracks, a starting point that is older than `maint` may
have to be chosen.
Helped-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Bugfix for fc01a5d2 (submodule update documentation: don't repeat
ourselves, 2016-12-27).
The `custom command` and `none` options are described as sharing the
same limitations, but one is allowed in .gitmodules and the other is
not.
Rewrite the description for custom commands to be more precise,
and make it easier for readers to notice that custom commands cannot
be used in the .gitmodules file.
Signed-off-by: Petar Vutov <pvutov@imap.cc>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Duplicate the logic of %(describe) and friends from pretty to
ref-filter. In the future, this change helps in unifying both the
formats as ref-filter will be able to do everything that pretty is doing
and we can have a single interface.
The new atom "describe" and its friends are equivalent to the existing
pretty formats with the same name.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Mentored-by: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Mentored-by: Hariom Verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Enumerating refs in the packed-refs file, while excluding refs that
match certain patterns, has been optimized.
* tb/refs-exclusion-and-packed-refs:
ls-refs.c: avoid enumerating hidden refs where possible
upload-pack.c: avoid enumerating hidden refs where possible
builtin/receive-pack.c: avoid enumerating hidden references
refs.h: implement `hidden_refs_to_excludes()`
refs.h: let `for_each_namespaced_ref()` take excluded patterns
revision.h: store hidden refs in a `strvec`
refs/packed-backend.c: add trace2 counters for jump list
refs/packed-backend.c: implement jump lists to avoid excluded pattern(s)
refs/packed-backend.c: refactor `find_reference_location()`
refs: plumb `exclude_patterns` argument throughout
builtin/for-each-ref.c: add `--exclude` option
ref-filter.c: parameterize match functions over patterns
ref-filter: add `ref_filter_clear()`
ref-filter: clear reachable list pointers after freeing
ref-filter.h: provide `REF_FILTER_INIT`
refs.c: rename `ref_filter`
In the "PATTERN FORMAT" section, all the other pattern elements are
shown as `monospace` literals inside "double quoted" strings. Do
the same for the explanation of a slash to make it consistent.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Among four examples, only this one used "double quoted" sample
patterns, but all others marked up the patterns in `monospace`.
Signed-off-by: Johan Ruokangas <johan@latehours.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Code snippets in a tutorial document no longer compiled after
recent header shuffling, which have been corrected.
* vd/adjust-mfow-doc-to-updated-headers:
docs: add necessary headers to Documentation/MFOW.txt
The "git for-each-ref" family of commands learned placeholders
related to GPG signature verification.
* ks/ref-filter-signature:
ref-filter: add new "signature" atom
t/lib-gpg: introduce new prereq GPG2
Background: The guidance to "base your work on the oldest branch that
your change is relevant to" was added in d0c26f0f56 (SubmittingPatches:
Add new section about what to base work on, 2010-04-19). That commit
also added the bullet points which describe the scenarios where one
would use one of the following named branches: "maint", "master",
"next", and "seen" ("pu" in the original as that was the name of this
branch before it was renamed, per 828197de8f (docs: adjust for the
recent rename of `pu` to `seen`, 2020-06-25)). The guidance was probably
taken from existing similar language introduced in the "Merge upwards"
section of gitworkflows in f948dd8992 (Documentation: add manpage about
workflows, 2008-10-19).
Summary: This change simplifies the guidance by pointing users to just
"maint" or "master". But it also gives an explanation of why that is
preferred and what is meant by preferring "older" branches (which might
be confusing to some because "old" here is meant in relative terms
between these named branches, not in terms of the age of the branches
themselves). We also add an example to illustrate why it would be a bad
idea to use "next" as a starting point, which may not be so obvious to
new contributors.
Helped-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The phrase
and unless it targets the `master` branch (which is the default),
mark your patches as such.
is tightly packed with several things happening in just two lines of
text. It also feels like it is not that important because of the terse
treatment. This is a problem because (1) it has the potential to confuse
new contributors, and (2) it may be glossed over for those skimming the
docs.
Emphasize and elaborate on this guidance by promoting it to its own
separate paragraph.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It could be that a suitable branch does not exist, so instead just use
the phrase "starting point". Technically speaking the starting point
would be a commit (not a branch) anyway.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The discussion around subsystems disrupts the flow of discussion in the
surrounding area, which only deals with starting points used for the
git.git project. So move this bullet point out to the end.
Signed-off-by: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When using `for-each-ref`, it is sometimes convenient for the caller to
be able to exclude certain parts of the references.
For example, if there are many `refs/__hidden__/*` references, the
caller may want to emit all references *except* the hidden ones.
Currently, the only way to do this is to post-process the output, like:
$ git for-each-ref --format='%(refname)' | grep -v '^refs/hidden/'
Which is do-able, but requires processing a potentially large quantity
of references.
Teach `git for-each-ref` a new `--exclude=<pattern>` option, which
excludes references from the results if they match one or more excluded
patterns.
This patch provides a naive implementation where the `ref_filter` still
sees all references (including ones that it will discard) and is left to
check whether each reference matches any excluded pattern(s) before
emitting them.
By culling out references we know the caller doesn't care about, we can
avoid allocating memory for their storage, as well as spending time
sorting the output (among other things). Even the naive implementation
provides a significant speed-up on a modified copy of linux.git (that
has a hidden ref pointing at each commit):
$ hyperfine \
'git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" | grep -vE "[0-9a-f]{40} refs/pull/"' \
'git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" --exclude refs/pull/'
Benchmark 1: git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" | grep -vE "[0-9a-f]{40} refs/pull/"
Time (mean ± σ): 820.1 ms ± 2.0 ms [User: 703.7 ms, System: 152.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 817.7 ms … 823.3 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 2: git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" --exclude refs/pull/
Time (mean ± σ): 106.6 ms ± 1.1 ms [User: 99.4 ms, System: 7.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 104.7 ms … 109.1 ms 27 runs
Summary
'git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" --exclude refs/pull/' ran
7.69 ± 0.08 times faster than 'git.compile for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" | grep -vE "[0-9a-f]{40} refs/pull/"'
Subsequent patches will improve on this by avoiding visiting excluded
sections of the `packed-refs` file in certain cases.
Co-authored-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Link to community list of credential helpers. This is useful information
for users.
Describe how OAuth credential helpers work. OAuth is a user-friendly
alternative to personal access tokens and SSH keys. Reduced setup cost
makes it easier for users to contribute to projects across multiple
forges.
Signed-off-by: M Hickford <mirth.hickford@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
'git notes append' was taught '--separator' to specify string to insert
between paragraphs.
* tl/notes-separator:
notes: introduce "--no-separator" option
notes.c: introduce "--[no-]stripspace" option
notes.c: append separator instead of insert by pos
notes.c: introduce '--separator=<paragraph-break>' option
t3321: add test cases about the notes stripspace behavior
notes.c: use designated initializers for clarity
notes.c: cleanup 'strbuf_grow' call in 'append_edit'
