| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
When peeling a tag for prepare_revision_walk(), we do not
respect the ignore_missing_links flag. This can lead to a
bogus error when pack-objects walks the possibly-broken
unreachable-but-recent part of the object graph.
The other link-following all happens via traverse_commit_list(),
which explains why this case was missed. And our tests
covered only broken links from commits. Let's be more
comprehensive and cover broken tree entries (which do work)
and tags (which shows off this bug).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Alternate refs backends might store reflogs somewhere other than
.git/logs. Change most test code that directly accesses .git/logs to
instead use git reflog commands.
There are still a few tests which need direct access to reflogs: to
check reflog permissions, to manually create reflogs from scratch, to
save/restore reflogs, to check the format of raw reflog data, and to
remove not just reflog contents, but the reflogs themselves. All cases
which don't need direct access have been modified.
Signed-off-by: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
We set revs->ignore_missing_links to instruct the
revision-walking machinery that we know the history graph
may be incomplete. For example, we use it when walking
unreachable but recent objects; we want to add what we can,
but it's OK if the history is incomplete.
However, we still print error messages for the missing
objects, which can be confusing. This is not an error, but
just a normal situation when transitioning from a repository
last pruned by an older git (which can leave broken segments
of history) to a more recent one (where we try to preserve
whole reachable segments).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
When we try to write a loose object file, we first check
whether that object already exists. If so, we skip the
write as an optimization. However, this can interfere with
prune's strategy of using mtimes to mark files in progress.
For example, if a branch contains a particular tree object
and is deleted, that tree object may become unreachable, and
have an old mtime. If a new operation then tries to write
the same tree, this ends up as a noop; we notice we
already have the object and do nothing. A prune running
simultaneously with this operation will see the object as
old, and may delete it.
We can solve this by "freshening" objects that we avoid
writing by updating their mtime. The algorithm for doing so
is essentially the same as that of has_sha1_file. Therefore
we provide a new (static) interface "check_and_freshen",
which finds and optionally freshens the object. It's trivial
to implement freshening and simple checking by tweaking a
single parameter.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A recent commit taught git-prune to keep non-recent objects
that are reachable from recent ones. However, pack-objects,
when loosening unreachable objects, tries to optimize out
the write in the case that the object will be immediately
pruned. It now gets this wrong, since its rule does not
reflect the new prune code (and this can be seen by running
t6501 with a strategically placed repack).
Let's teach pack-objects similar logic.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Our current strategy with prune is that an object falls into
one of three categories:
1. Reachable (from ref tips, reflogs, index, etc).
2. Not reachable, but recent (based on the --expire time).
3. Not reachable and not recent.
We keep objects from (1) and (2), but prune objects in (3).
The point of (2) is that these objects may be part of an
in-progress operation that has not yet updated any refs.
However, it is not always the case that objects for an
in-progress operation will have a recent mtime. For example,
the object database may have an old copy of a blob (from an
abandoned operation, a branch that was deleted, etc). If we
create a new tree that points to it, a simultaneous prune
will leave our tree, but delete the blob. Referencing that
tree with a commit will then work (we check that the tree is
in the object database, but not that all of its referred
objects are), as will mentioning the commit in a ref. But
the resulting repo is corrupt; we are missing the blob
reachable from a ref.
One way to solve this is to be more thorough when
referencing a sha1: make sure that not only do we have that
sha1, but that we have objects it refers to, and so forth
recursively. The problem is that this is very expensive.
Creating a parent link would require traversing the entire
object graph!
Instead, this patch pushes the extra work onto prune, which
runs less frequently (and has to look at the whole object
graph anyway). It creates a new category of objects: objects
which are not recent, but which are reachable from a recent
object. We do not prune these objects, just like the
reachable and recent ones.
This lets us avoid the recursive check above, because if we
have an object, even if it is unreachable, we should have
its referent. We can make a simple inductive argument that
with this patch, this property holds (that there are no
objects with missing referents in the repository):
0. When we have no objects, we have nothing to refer or be
referred to, so the property holds.
1. If we add objects to the repository, their direct
referents must generally exist (e.g., if you create a
tree, the blobs it references must exist; if you create
a commit to point at the tree, the tree must exist).
This is already the case before this patch. And it is
not 100% foolproof (you can make bogus objects using
`git hash-object`, for example), but it should be the
case for normal usage.
Therefore for any sequence of object additions, the
property will continue to hold.
2. If we remove objects from the repository, then we will
not remove a child object (like a blob) if an object
that refers to it is being kept. That is the part
implemented by this patch.
Note, however, that our reachability check and the
actual pruning are not atomic. So it _is_ still
possible to violate the property (e.g., an object
becomes referenced just as we are deleting it). This
patch is shooting for eliminating problems where the
mtimes of dependent objects differ by hours or days,
and one is dropped without the other. It does nothing
to help with short races.
Naively, the simplest way to implement this would be to add
all recent objects as tips to the reachability traversal.
However, this does not perform well. In a recently-packed
repository, all reachable objects will also be recent, and
therefore we have to look at each object twice. This patch
instead performs the reachability traversal, then follows up
with a second traversal for recent objects, skipping any
that have already been marked.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
Jeff King
David Turner