Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

worktree reset #1021

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from
Closed

worktree reset #1021

wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

Byron
Copy link
Member

@Byron Byron commented Sep 12, 2023

Based on #1008 .

Implement a proper worktree reset, eventually leading to a high-level reset similar to how git supports it.

Architecture

The reason this PR deals quite a bit with gix status is that for a safe implementation of reset() we need to be sure that the files we would want to touch don't don't carry modifications or are untracked files. In order to know what would need to be done, we have to diff the current-index with target-index. The set of files to touch can then be used to lookup information provided by git-status, like worktree modifications, index modifications, and untracked files, to know if we can proceed or not. Here is also where the reset-modes would affect the outcome, i.e. what to change and how.

This is a very modular approach which facilitates testing and understanding of what otherwise would be a very complex algorithm. Having a set of changes as output also allows to one day parallelize applying these changes.

This leaves us in a situation where the current checkout() implementation wants to become a fastpath for situations where the reset involves an empty tree as source (i.e. create everything and overwrite local changes).

On the way to reset() it's a valid choice to warm up more with the matter by improving on the current gix status implementation and assure correctness of what's there, which currently doesn't seem to be the case in comparison. Further, implementing gix status similarly to git status should be made possible.

Tasks

  • gix status draft with index-worktree support and progress support
  • pathspec support and prefixing
  • correctness: symlink check (see this commit for motivation)
  • handle stage-mask similar to git (remove conflict boolean in the process), making algorithm a two-stage process
  • add submodule support to index-as-worktree in gix-status
  • diff index with index to learn what we would want to do in the worktree
  • reset() that checks if it's allowed to perform a worktree modification is allowed, or if an entry should be skipped. That way we can postpone safety checks like --hard

Postponed

What follows is important for resets, but won't be needed for cargo worktree resets.

  • a way to obtain untracked files to learn if changes can be made

Research

  • How to integrate submodules - probably easy to answer once gix status can deal a little better with submodules. Even though in this case a lot of submodule-related information is needed for a complete reset, probably only doable by a higher-level caller which orchestrates it.
  • How to deal with various modes like merge and keep? How to control refresh? Maybe partial (only the files we touch), and full, to also update the files we don't touch as part of status? Maybe it's part of status if that is run before.
  • Worthwhile to make explicit the difference between git reset and git checkout in terms of HEAD modifications. With the former changing HEADs referent, and the latter changing HEAD itself.
  • figure out how this relates to the current checkout() method as technically that's a reset --hard with optional overwrite check. Could it be rolled into one, with pathspec support added?
    • just keep them separate until it's clear that reset() performs just as well, which is unlikely as there is more overhead. But maybe it's not worth to maintain two versions over it. But if so, one should probably rename it.
  • for git status: what about rename tracking? It's available for tree-diffs and quite complex on its own
  • for git status: How to deal with detailed conflict messages? Right now we only know if there is a conflict or not and it seems we would need access to the other entries (or condense that knowledge to be status-suitable).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant