[PATCH 2/3] qf: Make qf_pull -f forcibly clean

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:29:52AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 05:42:54PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > qf_checkout implies that you need to have that baseline
> > on your local repository, what it is not good for a distributed
> > maintenance.
> > 
> > Let's make qf pull -f useful for the case we want to start
> > a clean rebase from anywhere.
> > 
> > v2: Remove dubious comments and use -f.
> > 
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > Cc: James Ausmus <james.ausmus at intel.com>
> > Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  qf | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/qf b/qf
> > index 270bcf53000a..fb04aeb71428 100755
> > --- a/qf
> > +++ b/qf
> > @@ -404,11 +404,17 @@ function qf_pull
> >  {
> >  	cd_toplevel
> >  
> > -	qf fetch
> > +	qf_fetch
> >  	cd patches
> >  	git pull --ff-only
> >  
> > -	qf co
> > +	if [[ $FORCE ]]; then
> 
> if we want to force, don't we need to do this before the git pull?
> 
> 	if [ $FORCE ]; then
> 	git pull --ff-only

Yes, this is probably a good idea. Although the real forced
version is fetch & reset --hard ;)

> 
> 	qf co
> 
> if we want to force, don't we need to do this before the git pull?


there is a duplication here on your response that confused me...
what do you want here besides the git pull --ff-only inside the forced block?


> 
> 
> > +		git reset --hard HEAD
> > +	else
> > +		qf_co
> > +	fi
> > +
> > +	cd ..
> 
> 
> > +		git reset --hard HEAD
> > +	else
> > +		qf_co
> > +	fi
> > +
> > +	cd ..
> >  }
> >  
> >  function qf_stage
> > @@ -587,6 +593,19 @@ function qf_usage
> >  	echo "See '$qf help' for more information."
> >  }
> >  
> > +FORCE=
> > +while getopts f opt; do
> > +	case "$opt" in
> > +		f)
> > +			FORCE=1
> 
> The way you are checking for $FORCE means that even if you assign
> FORCE=0 the result will be true, which could be misleading (it will only
> be false if the var is unsed). Maybe here you could do "FORCE=FORCE" or
> assign 0 first and then in the check do a "if [ $FORCE -eq 1 ];" ?

I agree... just not sure if we should deviate from what is in use on dim.

> 
> Lucas De Marchi
> 
> > +			;;
> > +		*)
> > +			echo "See '$qf help' for more information."
> > +			exit
> > +	esac
> > +done
> > +shift $((OPTIND - 1))
> > +
> >  # qf subcommand aliases (with bash 4.3+)
> >  if ! declare -n subcmd=qf_alias_${subcommand//-/_} &> /dev/null || \
> >  		test -z "${subcmd:-}"; then
> > -- 
> > 2.13.6
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dim-tools mailing list
> > dim-tools at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
> _______________________________________________
> dim-tools mailing list
> dim-tools at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools