diff options
| author | Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> | 2006-10-29 00:47:56 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> | 2006-10-29 00:49:17 -0700 |
| commit | c7740a943ec896247ebc5514b6be02710caf3c53 (patch) | |
| tree | ab918e6d34d35d714a180f57e946afdc81aa0a57 /send-pack.c | |
| parent | b89c4e93cc1939493c2bb9b6c3f60eabaf653eff (diff) | |
| download | git-c7740a943ec896247ebc5514b6be02710caf3c53.tar.gz | |
send-pack --keep: do not explode into loose objects on the receiving end.
This adds "keep-pack" extension to send-pack vs receive pack protocol,
and makes the receiver invoke "index-pack --stdin --fix-thin".
With this, you can ask send-pack not to explode the result into
loose objects on the receiving end.
I've patched has_sha1_file() to re-check for added packs just
like is done in read_sha1_file() for now, but I think the static
"re-prepare" interface for packs was a mistake. Creation of a
new pack inside a process that needs to read objects in them
back ought to be a rare event, so we are better off making the
callers (such as receive-pack that calls "index-pack --stdin
--fix-thin") explicitly call re-prepare. That way we do not
have to penalize ordinary users of read_sha1_file() and
has_sha1_file().
We would need to fix this someday.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'send-pack.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | send-pack.c | 23 |
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c index 5bb123a376..54d218c03b 100644 --- a/send-pack.c +++ b/send-pack.c @@ -6,13 +6,14 @@ #include "exec_cmd.h" static const char send_pack_usage[] = -"git-send-pack [--all] [--exec=git-receive-pack] <remote> [<head>...]\n" +"git-send-pack [--all] [--keep] [--exec=git-receive-pack] <remote> [<head>...]\n" " --all and explicit <head> specification are mutually exclusive."; static const char *exec = "git-receive-pack"; static int verbose; static int send_all; static int force_update; static int use_thin_pack; +static int keep_pack; static int is_zero_sha1(const unsigned char *sha1) { @@ -270,6 +271,7 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, int nr_refspec, char **refspec) int new_refs; int ret = 0; int ask_for_status_report = 0; + int ask_to_keep_pack = 0; int expect_status_report = 0; /* No funny business with the matcher */ @@ -279,6 +281,8 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, int nr_refspec, char **refspec) /* Does the other end support the reporting? */ if (server_supports("report-status")) ask_for_status_report = 1; + if (server_supports("keep-pack") && keep_pack) + ask_to_keep_pack = 1; /* match them up */ if (!remote_tail) @@ -355,12 +359,17 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, int nr_refspec, char **refspec) strcpy(old_hex, sha1_to_hex(ref->old_sha1)); new_hex = sha1_to_hex(ref->new_sha1); - if (ask_for_status_report) { - packet_write(out, "%s %s %s%c%s", + if (ask_for_status_report || ask_to_keep_pack) { + packet_write(out, "%s %s %s%c%s%s", old_hex, new_hex, ref->name, 0, - "report-status"); + ask_for_status_report + ? " report-status" : "", + ask_to_keep_pack + ? " keep-pack" : ""); + if (ask_for_status_report) + expect_status_report = 1; ask_for_status_report = 0; - expect_status_report = 1; + ask_to_keep_pack = 0; } else packet_write(out, "%s %s %s", @@ -419,6 +428,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) verbose = 1; continue; } + if (!strcmp(arg, "--keep")) { + keep_pack = 1; + continue; + } if (!strcmp(arg, "--thin")) { use_thin_pack = 1; continue; |