From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EE7C77B6E for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229911AbjDNKN5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:13:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51746 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229917AbjDNKNz (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 06:13:55 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A159754 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id r20so1143422wra.5 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681467183; x=1684059183; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=24J2ORbSODEjOidVZcTvXBIjA/mDxySTsuKmtvbWiow=; b=BRKzlHUhsBzPhRyLWbw4CRjl6n9NmFuKs6SxXFibGbsCX/VEa2INxYnTLF9lOuzO7u 3zitrlnXZ8MjzOo8XDOAYwNshXRWfDia0Uf8m71TTb2No4d/b15Daxvo9QPkRckXrGpj hRPeOIaKr5mfMWQASgQn2hkBatRMF7nLq+Am/gxK+uT3ZDsYWhleY8nku+DP3NN35IeN cHNsJOZbDYEcUDpNsnF5iZVZdjMqjjKrSearL7EtHZ3iC5gPxL70qEgaPpjfLea/lYRM 0rSTzhiQnsjEQvfm2cZAWQJXkeBCV5EJATU3CSzskk4n/yNx05qJj7WSw9KpMtFyCJab UQww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681467183; x=1684059183; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=24J2ORbSODEjOidVZcTvXBIjA/mDxySTsuKmtvbWiow=; b=Yv3ZXpv8KirG8IA3c2y45Uhf19OO2QCh1qLkVO9OY1Us7V2vv5pRBAtA8NTjO8D1PM loV0jbUS+fowIeNlx3vDrM6eIC0KobDrbBjv5zWgEf6VAFqu648jB5gyvEJmLU3kPwzm j9ewo1TfjooSTVEIGmOmrs5nxy08UbIj9V3wh5XOeCdTMWDw9zbU85m9NlppD4c2Fc1l ZeE4KE8WVNXpuy7L0B/NJRtZFqwARHiqMjsviI7lSswyYzFfoOVvsSrIp/fAANucTsE4 xZyjC1uS5716ShUfZCHkNSPClFh28db6C6FjFlF5I7KtMMRfa5regS7QB5QhjAvgT+qI 6SXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9diHvQk1fqXCHmzwp047/EJ5enibIP6ODmIQTSwn4Pl6PiV6aXX Vy5Mo20CUjlaeYmGYXOLYNg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bUKizB18wt++wH9dHNVchwGnKm6AYtc12FGKoYCM8PAfpvOXSLQJuzGQ1Mqd5+A9oSwB1A5Q== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:62ca:0:b0:2f6:b273:a2fa with SMTP id o10-20020a5d62ca000000b002f6b273a2famr1978588wrv.34.1681467182967; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 03:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.195] ([90.253.53.152]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e11-20020a5d594b000000b002cfe687fc7asm3212932wri.67.2023.04.14.03.13.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Apr 2023 03:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <25f57067-e4fe-51d5-c42c-6f95940cba27@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:12:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1 Reply-To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Introduce new `git replay` command Content-Language: en-US To: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Junio C Hamano , Patrick Steinhardt , Johannes Schindelin , Elijah Newren , John Cai References: <20230407072415.1360068-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> From: Phillip Wood In-Reply-To: <20230407072415.1360068-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Christian and Elijah On 07/04/2023 08:24, Christian Couder wrote: > # Intro > > `git replay` has initially been developed entirely by Elijah Newren > mostly between June and July 2022 at: > > https://github.com/newren/git/commits/replay > > I took over a few months ago to polish and upstream it as GitLab is > interested in replacing libgit2, and for that purpose needs a command > to do server side (so without using a worktree) rebases, cherry-picks > and reverts. > > I reduced the number of commits and features in this first patch > series, compared to what Elijah already developed. Especially I > stopped short of replaying merge commits and replaying > interactively. These and other features might be upstreamed in the > future after this patch series has graduated. > > Thanks to Elijah, Patrick Steinhardt and Dscho for early reviews and > discussions. > > Based on ae73b2c8f1 (The seventh batch, 2023-04-04) Thanks to both of you for working on this it looks very interesting. I've had a quick read over the patches and I ended up slightly confused as to exactly what the aim of this series is. My main confusion is whether "replay" is intended to be a plumbing command or a porcelain command. The use case above suggests plumbing and there are patches that take it in that direction by removing any diagnostic output and stopping it update any refs. But then it is marked as porcelain in command-list.txt and there are patches that do things like unconditionally updating the index and worktree when there are conflicts that stop it working in bare repositories. I've left some comments below > # Quick Overview (from Elijah) > > `git replay`, at a basic level, can perhaps be thought of as a > "default-to-dry-run rebase" -- meaning no updates to the working tree, > or to the index, or to any references. However, it differs from > rebase in that it: > > * Works for branches that aren't checked out > * Works in a bare repository > * Can replay multiple branches simultaneously (with or without common > history in the range being replayed) > * Preserves relative topology by default (merges are replayed too) > * Focuses on performance > * Has several altered defaults as a result of the above > > I sometimes think of `git replay` as "fast-replay", a patch-based > analogue to the snapshot-based fast-export & fast-import tools. > > # Reasons for diverging from cherry-pick & rebase (from Elijah) > > There are multiple reasons to diverge from the defaults in cherry-pick and > rebase. > > * Server side needs > > * Both cherry-pick and rebase, via the sequencer, are heavily tied > to updating the working tree, index, some refs, and a lot of > control files with every commit replayed, and invoke a mess of > hooks[1] that might be hard to avoid for backward compatibility > reasons (at least, that's been brought up a few times on the > list). > > * cherry-pick and rebase both fork various subprocesses > unnecessarily, but somewhat intrinsically in part to ensure the > same hooks are called that old scripted implementations would > have called. To clarify, since 356ee4659bb (sequencer: try to commit without forking 'git commit', 2017-11-24) cherry-pick and rebase do not fork subprocesses other than hooks for the cases covered by this patch series (i.e. they do not fork "git commit" for simple picks). > * "Dry run" behavior, where there are no updates to worktree, index, > or even refs might be important. > > * Should not assume users only want to operate on HEAD (see next > section) > > * Decapitate HEAD-centric assumptions > > * cherry-pick forces commits to be played on top of HEAD; inflexible. > > * rebase assumes the range of commits to be replayed is > upstream..HEAD by default, though it allows one to replay > upstream..otherbranch -- but it still forcibly and needlessly > checks out otherbranch before starting to replay things. I agree it would be nice to be able to restrict the range of commits replayed, especially when replaying merges. The comment about checking out other branch is out of date since 767a9c417eb (rebase -i: stop checking out the tip of the branch to rebase, 2020-01-24) > * Assuming HEAD is involved severely limits replaying multiple > (possibly divergent) branches. I'm not sure how true this is anymore, since 89fc0b53fdb (rebase: update refs from 'update-ref' commands, 2022-07-19) the sequencer can update multiple branches. The issue with divergent branch is with command line arguments and the todo list generation rather than the capabilities of the sequencer. > * Once you stop assuming HEAD has a certain meaning, there's not > much reason to have two separate commands anymore (except for the > funny extra not-necessarily-compatible options both have gained > over time). I agree having a unified command at the plumbing level certainly makes sense. > * (Micro issue: Assuming HEAD is involved also makes it harder for > new users to learn what rebase means and does; it makes command > lines hard to parse. That's an interesting point, I wonder if operating on branches that are not checked out is potentially confusing for new user though. > Not sure I want to harp on this too much, as > I have a suspicion I might be creating a tool for experts with > complicated use cases, but it's a minor quibble.) > > * Performance > > * jj is slaughtering us on rebase speed[2]. I would like us to become > competitive. (I dropped a few comments in the link at [2] about why > git is currently so bad.) > > * From [3], there was a simple 4-patch series in linux.git that took > 53 seconds to rebase. Switching to ort dropped it to 16 seconds. > While that sounds great, only 11 *milliseconds* were needed to do > the actual merges. That means almost *all* the time (>99%) was > overhead! Big offenders: > > * --reapply-cherry-picks should be the default I agree that can be a performance hit if there are a lot of upstream commits, but it is also a usability feature as it means we don't stop and ask the user what to do with the commits that have been upstreamed which wastes more of their time. I think maybe we want different defaults for the server use case than the user replaying commits or perhaps default to dropping commits that become empty. > * can_fast_forward() should be ripped out, and perhaps other extraneous > revision walks We should look at doing that at least for the merge backend which has skip_unnecessary_picks(). I think it is useful to tell the user that the branch was not updated by the rebase though. > * avoid updating working tree, index, refs, reflogs, and control > structures except when needed (e.g. hitting a conflict, or operation > finished) Not writing to disc unless we need to is sensible. Having said that for interactive rebases I do find having HEAD's reflog record all the picks useful to unpick what went wrong if mess something up. > * Other performance ideas: > > * single-file control structures instead of directory of files I like the idea as it should make it easier to keep the on disc state consistent, but I'm not sure how much of an issue that is in practice as we only read/write the files once each time git is run. The bigger slow down is writing the author script, commit message, list of rewritten commits, todo list and done files with each pick. > * avoid forking subprocesses unless explicitly requested (e.g. > --exec, --strategy, --run-hooks). For example, definitely do not > invoke `git commit` or `git merge`. Good, that matches what the sequencer does for non-merge commits when we're not editing the commit message. > * Sanitize hooks: > > * dispense with all per-commit hooks for sure (pre-commit, > post-commit, post-checkout). I agree we should not be running those (we don't run the pre-commit hook anyway). However we had a bug report when cherry-pick stopped running the "prepare-commit-msg" hook (see https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAKdAkRQuj1hfKeckjuR2oP+8C1i+ZR36O-+aRYif4ufaS_zs+w@mail.gmail.com/). That shouldn't matter for the server but we should bear it in mind when it comes to other use cases. > * pre-rebase also seems to assume exactly 1 ref is written, and > invoking it repeatedly would be stupid. Plus, it's specific > to "rebase". So...ignore? (Stolee's --ref-update option for > rebase probably broke the pre-rebase assumptions already...) If replay is a plumbing command then skipping the pre-rebase hook makes sense as scripts can call it themselves if they want to. For a porcelain command keeping a hook that can prevent it from rewriting commits that are already upstream (which I think is one of the main uses of the pre-rebase hook) would be good. > * post-rewrite hook might make sense, but fast-import got > exempted, and I think of replay like a patch-based analogue > to the snapshot-based fast-import. If we don't call the hook it would be good to have a option that outputs that information so scripts can request it if they want. Also we should think about if/when we want to update the notes associated with replayed commits. > * When not running server side, resolve conflicts in a sparse-cone > sparse-index worktree to reduce number of files written to a > working tree. (See below as well) > > * [High risk of possible premature optimization] Avoid large > numbers of newly created loose objects, when replaying large > numbers of commits. Two possibilities: (1) Consider using > tmp-objdir and pack objects from the tmp-objdir at end of > exercise, (2) Lift code from git-fast-import to immediately > stuff new objects into a pack? > > * Multiple branches and non-checked out branches > > * The ability to operate on non-checked out branches also implies > that we should generally be able to replay when in a dirty working > tree (exception being when we expect to update HEAD and any of the > dirty files is one that needs to be updated by the replay). > > * Also, if we are operating locally on a non-checked out branch and > hit a conflict, we should have a way to resolve the conflict without > messing with the user's work on their current branch. That sounds tricky to do in a user friendly way. > * Idea: new worktree with sparse cone + sparse index checkout, > containing only files in the root directory, and whatever is > necessary to get the conflicts If the user has not asked for a sparse checkout then this could be surprising. Sometimes I find it helpful to be able to poke about in other source files when resolving a conflict. I also often build and test after resolving a conflict which requires more than just the conflict to be checked out. > * Companion to above idea: control structures should be written to > $GIT_COMMON_DIR/replay-${worktree}, so users can have multiple > replay sessions, and so we know which worktrees are associated > with which replay operations. We certainly want some way of making sure we only update a given ref in one replay session, and have checks to for whether the ref is checked out anywhere as we do now for rebase --update-refs. That seems to be lacking in the patches adding ref updating in this series. > - [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.749.v3.git.git.1586044818132.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/ > - [2] https://github.com/martinvonz/jj/discussions/49 > - [3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BE48=97k_3tnNqXPjSEfA163F8hoE+HY0Zvz1SWB2B8EA@mail.gmail.com/ > > # Important limitations > > * The code die()s if there are any conflict. No resumability. No nice > output. No interactivity. I can see that on a server you might not want any output, but if I run it locally it would be nice to have a message saying which paths have conflicts. Maybe we could add a --quiet flag for the server rather than removing the existing messages? > * No replaying merges, nor root commits. Only regular commits. That is a reasonable place to start. > * Signed commits are not properly handled. It's not clear what to do > to such commits when replaying on the server side. Yes on the server where you don't have access to the signing key there is not much need for replay to have a signing option. > # Commit overview > > * 1/14 replay: introduce new builtin > > This creates a minimal `git replay` command by moving the code > from the `fast-rebase` test helper from `t/helper/` into > `builtin/` and doing some renames and a few other needed changes. > > * - 2/14 replay: start using parse_options API > - 3/14 replay: die() instead of failing assert() > - 4/14 replay: introduce pick_regular_commit() > - 5/14 replay: don't simplify history > - 6/14 replay: add an important FIXME comment about gpg signing > - 7/14 replay: remove progress and info output > - 8/14 replay: remove HEAD related sanity check > > These slowly change the command to make it behave more like a > regular commands and to start cleaning up its output. > > * 9/14 replay: very coarse worktree updating > > Make it handle conflicts in a very coarse way. This might not > work on bare repos, but it allows existing tests to pass and it's > nice to help cli users a bit when they get conflicts. > > * 10/14 replay: make it a minimal server side command > > After the cleaning up in previous ommits, it's now time to > radically change the way it works by stopping it to do ref > updates, to update the index and worktree, to consider HEAD as > special. Instead just make it output commands that should be > passed to `git update-ref --stdin`. > > * - 11/14 replay: use standard revision ranges > - 12/14 replay: introduce guess_new_base() > - 13/14 replay: add different modes > - 14/14 replay: stop assuming replayed branches do not diverge > > These finish the clean up and add new interesting features at > the same time, as well as related documentation and tests. > > # Note about tests and documentation > > Note that the `fast-rebase` test helper was used before this series in > > t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh > > So when `git replay` is created from `fast-rebase` in patch 1/14, this > test script is also converted to use `git replay`. This ensures that > `git replay` doesn't break too badly during the first 10 patches in > this patch series. > > Tests and documentation are introduced specifically for `git replay` > only in 11/14 and later patches as it doesn't make much sense to > document and test behavior that we know is going to change soon. So > it's only when the command is crystalizing towards its final form that > we start documenting and testing it. > > # Possibly controversial issues > > * bare or not bare: this series works towards a command with the end > goal of it being usable and used on bare repos, contrary to existing > commands like `git rebase` and `git cherry-pick`, but the tests > currently don't check that, and in case of conflicts it won't > currently work on bare repos. One reason for that is that existing > tests in t6429 should continue to work, and one of these tests > requires some output in case of conflict. And it's nice for users to > get some help in case of conflict. It's also nice for users if > commands that should work on both bare and non bare repos work well > on non bare repos first as they are less likely to use them on bare > repos. So let's have a command that works well on non-bare repos > first, even if its end goal is to work fine on bare repos too. We > plan to improve things for bare repos soon after this first patch > series graduates. > > * exit status: a successful, non-conflicted replay exits with code > 0. When the replay has conflicts, the exit status is 1. If the > replay is not able to complete (or start) due to some kind of error, > the exit status is something other than 0 or 1. It has been > suggested in an internal review that conflicts might want to get a > more specific error code as an error code of 1 might be quite easy > to return by accident. It doesn't seem to me from their docs (which > might want to be improved, I didn't look at the code) that other > commands like `git merge` and `git rebase` exit with a special error > code in case of conflict. I don't think we've ever had a special "conflict" error code but it would be useful for scripts if replay had one. Does replay return a different exit code for "merge conflicts" and "cannot merge because it would overwrite an untracked file"? Does it have an exit code for "the commit becomes empty" or are those patches unconditionally dropped? > * to guess or not to guess: commit 12/14 introduces the > guess_new_base() function which tries to find a base to rebase onto > when the --onto option is not provided, making this option actually > optional instead of mandatory. Given that it's an heuristic and the > command end goal is to be used on server side, we might want to > introduce this as an iterative improvement later. I still think it's > interesting to have it in for now though, as it shows that --onto > and --advance (which is introduced in the following commit) should > indeed be options. If --onto was always mandatory in the series, > people could argue that it shouldn't be an option and its argument > should always be the first (unconditional) argument of the command. I think it comes down to "what's the aim of this series?" is it focused on the bare repository server use case or is it trying to add a general purpose cli tool. > * make worktree and index changes optional: commit 10/14 stops > updating the index and worktree, but it might be better especially > for cli users to make that optional. The issue is that this would > make the command more complex while we are developing a number of > important features. It seems to me that this should rather be done > in an iterative improvement after the important features have > landed. I'm confused by this as patch 9 seems to start updating the index and worktree when there are conflicts but patch 10 stops updating the index and worktree if the replay is successful. > * when and where to add tests and docs: although t6429 has tests that > are changed to use the new command instead of the fast-rebase > test-tool command as soon as the former is introduced, there is no > specific test script and no doc for the new command until commit > 11/14 when standard revision ranges are used. This is done to avoid > churn in tests and docs while the final form of the command hasn't > crystalized enough. Adding tests and doc at this point makes this > commit quite big and possibly more difficult to review than if they > were in separate commits though. On the other hand when tests and > docs are added in specific commits some reviewers say it would be > better to introduce them when the related changes are made. > > * --advance and --contained: these two advanced options might not > belong to this first series and could perhaps be added in a followup > series in separate commits. On the other hand the code for > --contained seems involved with the code of --advance and it's nice > to see soon that git replay can indeed do cherry-picking and rebase > many refs at once, and this way fullfil these parts of its promise. Once I understood what these options did the names made sense, but I could not tell from the names what they were going to do. For me "--cherry-pick" and "--update-refs" would have been clearer. It might be worth splitting this patch so the individual options are added separately. > * replaying diverging branches: 14/14 the last patch in the series, > which allow replaying diverging branches, can be seen as a > fundamental fix or alternatively as adding an interesting > feature. So it's debatable if it should be in its own patch along > with its own tests as in this series, or if it should be merged into > a previous patch and which one. It might make sense to add this in the same patch as you add --contained. > * only 2 patches: this patch series can be seen from a high level > point of view as 1) introducing the new `git replay` command, and 2) > using `git replay` to replace, and get rid of, the fast-rebase > test-tool command. The fact that not much of the original > fast-rebase code and interface is left would agree with that point > of view. On the other hand, fast-rebase can also be seen as a first > iteration towards `git replay`. So it can also make sense to see how > `git replay` evolved from it. Starting with fast-rebase means one has to checkout the first patch to see what code we're adding to replay.c and to make sense of the later patches that remove code. It would be interesting to compare this series to one that started from scratch but I guess that would be quite a bit of work. Thanks for working on this, I'm interested to see where it goes Best Wishes Phillip > > Elijah Newren (14): > replay: introduce new builtin > replay: start using parse_options API > replay: die() instead of failing assert() > replay: introduce pick_regular_commit() > replay: don't simplify history > replay: add an important FIXME comment about gpg signing > replay: remove progress and info output > replay: remove HEAD related sanity check > replay: very coarse worktree updating > replay: make it a minimal server side command > replay: use standard revision ranges > replay: introduce guess_new_base() > replay: add different modes > replay: stop assuming replayed branches do not diverge > > .gitignore | 1 + > Documentation/git-replay.txt | 130 +++++++ > Makefile | 2 +- > builtin.h | 1 + > builtin/replay.c | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > command-list.txt | 1 + > git.c | 1 + > t/helper/test-fast-rebase.c | 233 ------------- > t/helper/test-tool.c | 1 - > t/helper/test-tool.h | 1 - > t/t3650-replay-basics.sh | 160 +++++++++ > t/t6429-merge-sequence-rename-caching.sh | 43 ++- > 12 files changed, 739 insertions(+), 254 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/git-replay.txt > create mode 100644 builtin/replay.c > delete mode 100644 t/helper/test-fast-rebase.c > create mode 100755 t/t3650-replay-basics.sh >