97716d217c
Add a --prune-tags option to git-fetch, along with fetch.pruneTags
config option and a -P shorthand (-p is --prune). This allows for
doing any of:
git fetch -p -P
git fetch --prune --prune-tags
git fetch -p -P origin
git fetch --prune --prune-tags origin
Or simply:
git config fetch.prune true &&
git config fetch.pruneTags true &&
git fetch
Instead of the much more verbose:
git fetch --prune origin 'refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*' '+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*'
Before this feature it was painful to support the use-case of pulling
from a repo which is having both its branches *and* tags deleted
regularly, and have our local references to reflect upstream.
At work we create deployment tags in the repo for each rollout, and
there's *lots* of those, so they're archived within weeks for
performance reasons.
Without this change it's hard to centrally configure such repos in
/etc/gitconfig (on servers that are only used for working with
them). You need to set fetch.prune=true globally, and then for each
repo:
git -C {} config --replace-all remote.origin.fetch "refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*" "^\+*refs/tags/\*:refs/tags/\*$"
Now I can simply set fetch.pruneTags=true in /etc/gitconfig as well,
and users running "git pull" will automatically get the pruning
semantics I want.
Even though "git remote" has corresponding "prune" and "update
--prune" subcommands I'm intentionally not adding a corresponding
prune-tags or "update --prune --prune-tags" mode to that command.
It's advertised (as noted in my recent "git remote doc: correct
dangerous lies about what prune does") as only modifying remote
tracking references, whereas any --prune-tags option is always going
to modify what from the user's perspective is a local copy of the tag,
since there's no such thing as a remote tracking tag.
Ideally add_prune_tags_to_fetch_refspec() would be something that
would use ALLOC_GROW() to grow the 'fetch` member of the 'remote'
struct. Instead I'm realloc-ing remote->fetch and adding the
tag_refspec to the end.
The reason is that parse_{fetch,push}_refspec which allocate the
refspec (ultimately remote->fetch) struct are called many places that
don't have access to a 'remote' struct. It would be hard to change all
their callsites to be amenable to carry around the bookkeeping
variables required for dynamic allocation.
All the other callers of the API first incrementally construct the
string version of the refspec in remote->fetch_refspec via
add_fetch_refspec(), before finally calling parse_fetch_refspec() via
some variation of remote_get().
It's less of a pain to deal with the one special case that needs to
modify already constructed refspecs than to chase down and change all
the other callsites. The API I'm adding is intentionally not
generalized because if we add more of these we'd probably want to
re-visit how this is done.
See my "Re: [BUG] git remote prune removes local tags, depending on
fetch config" (87po6ahx87.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com;
https://public-inbox.org/git/87po6ahx87.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/) for
more background info.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Contributed Software Although these pieces are available as part of the official git source tree, they are in somewhat different status. The intention is to keep interesting tools around git here, maybe even experimental ones, to give users an easier access to them, and to give tools wider exposure, so that they can be improved faster. I am not expecting to touch these myself that much. As far as my day-to-day operation is concerned, these subdirectories are owned by their respective primary authors. I am willing to help if users of these components and the contrib/ subtree "owners" have technical/design issues to resolve, but the initiative to fix and/or enhance things _must_ be on the side of the subtree owners. IOW, I won't be actively looking for bugs and rooms for enhancements in them as the git maintainer -- I may only do so just as one of the users when I want to scratch my own itch. If you have patches to things in contrib/ area, the patch should be first sent to the primary author, and then the primary author should ack and forward it to me (git pull request is nicer). This is the same way as how I have been treating gitk, and to a lesser degree various foreign SCM interfaces, so you know the drill. I expect that things that start their life in the contrib/ area to graduate out of contrib/ once they mature, either by becoming projects on their own, or moving to the toplevel directory. On the other hand, I expect I'll be proposing removal of disused and inactive ones from time to time. If you have new things to add to this area, please first propose it on the git mailing list, and after a list discussion proves there are some general interests (it does not have to be a list-wide consensus for a tool targeted to a relatively narrow audience -- for example I do not work with projects whose upstream is svn, so I have no use for git-svn myself, but it is of general interest for people who need to interoperate with SVN repositories in a way git-svn works better than git-svnimport), submit a patch to create a subdirectory of contrib/ and put your stuff there. -jc