Prune only branch #1127
Prune only branch #1127
Conversation
|
Depends: #1124 |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably 75f24b3) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
This needs a rebase. |
cgwalters
force-pushed
the
prune-only-branch
branch
from
50525a2 to
e34f7fd
Compare
|
Rebased! 🏄 |
tests/test-prune.sh
Outdated
|
|
||
| find ${repo}/objects -name '*.commit' | wc -l > commitcount | ||
| assert_file_has_content commitcount '^'${count}'$' | ||
| rm -f commitcount |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about:
[[ $(find ... | wc -l) == ${count} ]]?
src/ostree/ot-builtin-prune.c
Outdated
| * if the ref isn't in --only-branch set. | ||
| */ | ||
| g_hash_table_iter_init (&hash_iter, all_refs); | ||
| while (g_hash_table_iter_next (&hash_iter, &key, &value)) |
src/ostree/ot-builtin-prune.c
Outdated
| /* Ensure the specified branch exists */ | ||
| if (!ostree_repo_resolve_rev (repo, ref, FALSE, &commit, error)) | ||
| return FALSE; | ||
| g_hash_table_add (only_branches_set, *iter); |
src/ostree/ot-builtin-prune.c
Outdated
| for (char **iter = opt_only_branches; iter && *iter; iter++) | ||
| { | ||
| const char *ref = *iter; | ||
| g_autofree char *commit = NULL; |
| @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ static GOptionEntry options[] = { | |||
| { "keep-younger-than", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_STRING, &opt_keep_younger_than, "Prune all commits older than the specified date", "DATE" }, | |||
| { "static-deltas-only", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_NONE, &opt_static_deltas_only, "Change the behavior of delete-commit and keep-younger-than to prune only static deltas" }, | |||
| { "retain-branch-depth", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_STRING_ARRAY, &opt_retain_branch_depth, "Additionally retain BRANCH=DEPTH commits", "BRANCH=DEPTH" }, | |||
| { "only-branch", 0, 0, G_OPTION_ARG_STRING_ARRAY, &opt_only_branches, "Only prune BRANCH (may be specified multiple times)", "BRANCH" }, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you thought about making these positional args, e.g. just ostree prune foo bar? Seems more natural.
Hmm, although git prune foo bar has the opposite meaning:
<head>...
In addition to objects reachable from any of our references, keep objects reachable from listed <head>s.
which I find odd, but if in case people are used to that, I'm fine with leaving it as a switch!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mmm...not sure about promoting this to the toplevel quite yet.
src/ostree/ot-builtin-prune.c
Outdated
| { | ||
| const char *ref = key; | ||
| if (!g_hash_table_contains (only_branches_set, ref)) | ||
| g_hash_table_insert (retain_branch_depth, g_strdup (ref), GINT_TO_POINTER ((int)-1)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we be erroring in case the ref is already in the hash table? E.g. someone typing --only-branch foo --retain-branch-depth=bar=5 might not understand what the command is doing.
We had lots of duplicates; prep for adding more tests.
In 5c94098 / ostreedev#646 we added `--retain-branch-depth`; this adds a symmetric `--only-branch` for the case where a repo owner just wants to prune a specific branch. The implementation here is pretty straightforward; we just walk all refs and inject the equivalent of `--retain-branch-depth=$ref=-1` if they're *not* in `--only-branch`. Closes: ostreedev#1115
cgwalters
force-pushed
the
prune-only-branch
branch
from
e34f7fd to
8ec80eb
Compare
|
Fixups ⬆️ |
src/ostree/ot-builtin-prune.c
Outdated
| return FALSE; | ||
| g_hash_table_add (only_branches_set, *iter); | ||
| if (g_hash_table_contains (retain_branch_depth, ref)) | ||
| return glnx_throw (error, "--retain-branch-depth conflicts with --only-branch"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We want this bit down there no? I.e. we do want to be able to specify --retain-branch-depth=my-ref=0 --only-branch my-ref, right?
I was targeting the g_hash_table_insert below instead:
GLNX_HASH_TABLE_FOREACH (all_refs, const char *, ref)
{
if (!g_hash_table_contains (only_branches_set, ref))
{
if (!g_hash_table_insert (retain_branch_depth, g_strdup (ref), GINT_TO_POINTER ((int)-1)))
return glnx_throw (error, "--retain-branch-depth conflicts with --only-branch");
}
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hum...so a high level design I had here was that with --only-branch one just uses the global --depth. In other words: --retain-branch-depth=my-ref=0 --only-branch my-ref is equivalent to --refs-only --only-branch my-ref right?
I'm not quite sure when one would want to combine --only-branch with different depths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we want to support e.g. --only-branch foo --only-branch bar ? So then you have to resort to --retain-branch-depth if you want them pruned at different depths, no? Well, they can just use separate invocations I suppose (or use the API directly). Though it seems easy enough to support. Otherwise, we should just error out if any --retain-branch-depth is passed at all when --only-branch is given I'd say. And also, remove the related comment block:
+ /* Process --only-branch. Note this combines with --retain-branch-depth; one
+ * could do e.g.:
+ * * --only-branch exampleos/x86_64/foo
+ * * --retain-branch-depth exampleos/x86_64/foo=0
+ * to prune exampleos/x86_64/foo to just the latest commit.
+ */There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think your original comment here was right - I don't see a reason not to support combining the two, even with different branches. Thanks for sticking with this...another fixup ⬇️
In 5c94098 / #646 we added `--retain-branch-depth`; this adds a symmetric `--only-branch` for the case where a repo owner just wants to prune a specific branch. The implementation here is pretty straightforward; we just walk all refs and inject the equivalent of `--retain-branch-depth=$ref=-1` if they're *not* in `--only-branch`. Closes: #1115 Closes: #1127 Approved by: jlebon
|
☀️ Test successful - status-atomicjenkins |
No description provided.