GNU bug report logs - #65352
Fix time-machine and network

Previous Next

Full log

Message #144 received at 65352 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 65352 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <guix <at> cbaines.net>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#65352] Fix time-machine and network
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 17:58:05 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 at 17:01, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

>>>   2. Short commit IDs are no longer handled in the 'commit case, as I
>>>      mentioned before in this thread (and then forgot).  Could you
>>>      reintroduce support for them?
>>
>> Short commit ID are handled by tag-or-commit (guix time-machine and
>> guix pull).  If there is a discrepancy elsewhere with short commit ID,
>> it should be fixed overthere, IMHO.
>>
>> Else, I do not understand what you are asking.  From my understanding,
>> it would not make sense to have short commit ID handled with (commit .
>> "abc123") for some part of the code and (tag-or-commit . "abc123") for
>> some other part.
>
> It the caller passes (commit . "1234"), this is no longer handled
> efficiently as it used to be.
>
> Maybe that’s a bit of a theoretical issue though because in practice
> CLIs would pass (tag-or-commit . "1234"), right?

Well, to my knowledge, ’guix pull’ and ’guix time-machine’ pass
'tag-or-commit for short commit ID.  Somehow, that’s the beginning of
all this. :-)

The story starts with 79ec651a286c71a3d4c72be33a1f80e76a560031 and
ecab937897385fce3e3ce0c5f128afba4304187c:

          (option '("commit") #t #f
                  (lambda (opt name arg result)
-                   (alist-cons 'ref `(commit . ,arg) result)))
+                   (alist-cons 'ref `(tag-or-commit . ,arg) result)))

and then I just try to keep consistent some rest with these changes,
cleaning unnecessary network access.  The root of all is maybe this
change f36522416e69d95f222fdfa6404d1981eb5225b6, introducing
tag-or-commit.

Having all that in mind, we have to make clear how to internally
represent a short commit ID:

  + either (commit . "1234")
  + either (tag-or-commit . "1234")

but not both.  It appears to me a slippery slope with potential nasty
bugs if we mix the both.

From a CLI point of view, say “guix pull --comnit=foo123”, it is hard to
know beforehand if “foo123“ is a tag or a short commit ID, hence the
representation (tag-or-commit . "foo123") then resolved by the heuristic
implemented by ’resolve-reference’; as nicely implemented by f36522. :-)

Now, if elsewhere in the Guix code base, something is reading ‘foo123’
and constructs (commit . "foo123") in order to pass it to
’update-cached-checkout’, my opinion is that we need to correct it and
instead construct (tag-or-commit . "foo123").  Somehow, be in agreement
with 79ec65, ecab93 and f36522. :-)

To conclude, we had all this long thread discussion, partially because
REF is not explicitly specified but implicitly used here or there.

Therefore, to end this lengthy thread, I propose to send a patch
documenting these cases.  For example, update the docstring of
reference-available?.  Well, let close this « Fix time-machine and
network » since it is done, I guess.  And open another one for this
discussion about short commit ID internal representation.  WDYT?

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.