git/builtin/pull.c, branch v2.30.2

Merge branch 'pb/pull-rebase-recurse-submodules'

2020-12-03T08:18:06Z

"git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules" checked for local changes in a wrong range and failed to run correctly when it should. * pb/pull-rebase-recurse-submodules: pull: check for local submodule modifications with the right range t5572: describe '--rebase' tests a little more t5572: add notes on a peculiar test pull --rebase: compute rebase arguments in separate function

Merge branch 'js/pull-rebase-use-advise'

2020-11-30T22:49:42Z

UI improvement. * js/pull-rebase-use-advise: pull: colorize the hint about setting `pull.rebase`

pull: colorize the hint about setting `pull.rebase`

2020-11-19T22:13:30Z

In d18c950a69f (pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to merge, 2020-03-09), a new hint was introduced to encourage users to make a conscious decision about whether they want their pull to merge or to rebase by configuring the `pull.rebase` setting. This warning was clearly intended to advise users, but as pointed out in https://lore.kernel.org/git/87ima2rdsm.fsf%40evledraar.gmail.com, it uses `warning()` instead of `advise()`. One consequence is that the advice is not colorized in the same manner as other, similar messages. So let's use `advise()` instead. Pointed-out-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

pull: check for local submodule modifications with the right range

2020-11-17T00:01:13Z

Ever since 'git pull' learned '--recurse-submodules' in a6d7eb2c7a (pull: optionally rebase submodules (remote submodule changes only), 2017-06-23), we check if there are local submodule modifications by checking the revision range 'curr_head --not rebase_fork_point'. The goal of this check is to abort the pull if there are submodule modifications in the local commits being rebased, since this scenario is not supported. However, the actual range of commits being rebased is not 'rebase_fork_point..curr_head', as the logic in 'get_rebase_newbase_and_upstream' reveals, it is 'upstream..curr_head'. If the 'git merge-base --fork-point' invocation in 'get_rebase_fork_point' fails to find a fork point between the current branch and the remote-tracking branch we are pulling from, 'rebase_fork_point' is null and since 4d36f88be7 (submodule: do not pass null OID to setup_revisions, 2018-05-24), 'submodule_touches_in_range' checks 'curr_head' and all its ancestors for submodule modifications. Since it is highly likely that there are submodule modifications in this range (which is in effect the whole history of the current branch), this prevents 'git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules' from succeeding if no fork point exists between the current branch and the remote-tracking branch being pulled. This can happen, for example, when the current branch was forked from a commit which was never recorded in the reflog of the remote-tracking branch we are pulling, as the last two paragraphs of the "Discussion on fork-point mode" section in git-merge-base(1) explain. Fix this bug by passing 'upstream' instead of 'rebase_fork_point' as the 'excl_oid' argument to 'submodule_touches_in_range'. Reported-by: Brice Goglin Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

pull --rebase: compute rebase arguments in separate function

2020-11-17T00:01:13Z

The function 'run_rebase' is responsible for constructing the command line to be passed to 'git rebase'. This includes both forwarding pass-through options given to 'git pull' as well computing the and arguments to 'git rebase'. A following commit will need to access the argument in 'cmd_pull' to fix a bug with 'git pull --rebase --recurse-submodules'. In order to do so, refactor the code so that the and commits are computed in a new, separate function, 'get_rebase_newbase_and_upstream'. Signed-off-by: Philippe Blain Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Documentation: stylistically normalize references to Signed-off-by:

2020-10-20T18:57:40Z

Ted reported an old typo in the git-commit.txt and merge-options.txt. Namely, the phrase "Signed-off-by line" was used without either a definite nor indefinite article. Upon examination, it seems that the documentation (including items in Documentation/, but also option help strings) have been quite inconsistent on usage when referring to `Signed-off-by`. First, very few places used a definite or indefinite article with the phrase "Signed-off-by line", but that was the initial typo that led to this investigation. So, normalize using either an indefinite or definite article consistently. The original phrasing, in Commit 3f971fc425b (Documentation updates, 2005-08-14), is "Add Signed-off-by line". Commit 6f855371a53 (Add --signoff, --check, and long option-names. 2005-12-09) switched to using "Add `Signed-off-by:` line", but didn't normalize the former commit to match. Later commits seem to have cut and pasted from one or the other, which is likely how the usage became so inconsistent. Junio stated on the git mailing list in a preference to leave off the colon. Thus, prefer `Signed-off-by` (with backticks) for the documentation files and Signed-off-by (without backticks) for option help strings. Additionally, Junio argued that "trailer" is now the standard term to refer to `Signed-off-by`, saying that "becomes plenty clear that we are not talking about any random line in the log message". As such, prefer "trailer" over "line" anywhere the former word fits. However, leave alone those few places in documentation that use Signed-off-by to refer to the process (rather than the specific trailer), or in places where mail headers are generally discussed in comparison with Signed-off-by. Reported-by: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Signed-off-by: Bradley M. Kuhn Acked-by: Taylor Blau Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'ah/pull'

2020-09-29T21:01:22Z

Earlier we taught "git pull" to warn when the user does not say the histories need to be merged, rebased or accepts only fast- forwarding, but the warning triggered for those who have set the pull.ff configuration variable. * ah/pull: pull: don't warn if pull.ff has been set

pull: don't warn if pull.ff has been set

2020-09-25T06:04:27Z

A user who understands enough to set pull.ff does not need additional instructions. Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

strvec: rename struct fields

2020-07-31T02:18:06Z

The "argc" and "argv" names made sense when the struct was argv_array, but now they're just confusing. Let's rename them to "nr" (which we use for counts elsewhere) and "v" (which is rather terse, but reads well when combined with typical variable names like "args.v"). Note that we have to update all of the callers immediately. Playing tricks with the preprocessor is hard here, because we wouldn't want to rewrite unrelated tokens. Signed-off-by: Jeff King Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

strvec: fix indentation in renamed calls

2020-07-28T22:02:18Z

Code which split an argv_array call across multiple lines, like: argv_array_pushl(&args, "one argument", "another argument", "and more", NULL); was recently mechanically renamed to use strvec, which results in mis-matched indentation like: strvec_pushl(&args, "one argument", "another argument", "and more", NULL); Let's fix these up to align the arguments with the opening paren. I did this manually by sifting through the results of: git jump grep 'strvec_.*,$' and liberally applying my editor's auto-format. Most of the changes are of the form shown above, though I also normalized a few that had originally used a single-tab indentation (rather than our usual style of aligning with the open paren). I also rewrapped a couple of obvious cases (e.g., where previously too-long lines became short enough to fit on one), but I wasn't aggressive about it. In cases broken to three or more lines, the grouping of arguments is sometimes meaningful, and it wasn't worth my time or reviewer time to ponder each case individually. Signed-off-by: Jeff King Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano