From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1•demon.co.uk>
Cc: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail•com>,
David Turner <dturner@twopensource•com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger•kernel.org>,
David Turner <dturner@twitter•com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] cache-tree: Write updated cache-tree after commit
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:16:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq8unvy4bf.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53C42453.1090109@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> (Ramsay Jones's message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:41:23 +0100")
Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1•demon.co.uk> writes:
> On 14/07/14 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1•demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> that the merge commit 7608c87e fails. Looking at the details of the
>>> merge resolution, made me think of Duy's split index work.
>>
>> Yes, there is a deliberately dropped hunk from dt/cache-tree-repair
>> in that merge, because the topic relied on being able to say "here
>> is the file descriptor, write the index to it", which no longer is
>> available with the split-index topic.
>
> Ah, OK. Sounds like everything is under control then.
Wasn't, but now I think it is ;-)
David, could you please double check the conflict resolution at
882426ea (Merge branch 'dt/cache-tree-repair' into jch, 2014-07-14),
at about the middle between master..pu? By eyeballing
git diff 882426ea^ 882426ea
we should see what your series would have done if it were based on
top of the nd/split-index topic. The most iffy is the first hunk of
change to builtin/commit.c, which is more or less my rewrite of what
you did on top of 'master'.
The change to builtin/checkout.c also seems somewhat iffy in that we
treat the_index.cache_tree (aka "active_cache_tree") as if cache
trees are something we can manipulate independent of a particular
index_state (which has been the rule for a long time), even though
in the world order after nd/split-index topic, cache_tree_update()
can no longer be used on a cache-tree that is not associated to a
particular index_state. It is not a problem with your series, but
comes from nd/split-index topic, and it might indicate a slight
unevenness of the API (i.e. we may want to either insist that the
public API to muck with a cache-tree outside cache-tree.c must be
accessed via an index-state and never via a bare cache-tree
structure, by insisting that cache_tree_fully_valid() to take a
pointer to an index-state as well; or we may want to go the other
way and allow API users to pass a bare cache-tree without the
index-state when the latter is not absolutely necessary, by changing
cache_tree_update() to take a cache-tree, not an index-state).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-14 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-12 4:44 [PATCH v8 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkout David Turner
2014-07-12 4:44 ` [PATCH v8 2/4] test-dump-cache-tree: invalid trees are not errors David Turner
2014-07-12 4:44 ` [PATCH v8 3/4] cache-tree: subdirectory tests David Turner
2014-07-12 4:44 ` [PATCH v8 4/4] cache-tree: Write updated cache-tree after commit David Turner
2014-07-13 5:09 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-07-14 15:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-14 17:33 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-07-14 17:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-14 18:41 ` Ramsay Jones
2014-07-14 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-07-14 22:32 ` David Turner
2014-07-15 2:15 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-07-15 6:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-15 10:23 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-07-15 16:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-16 10:18 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-07-16 17:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-14 17:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-07-14 20:19 ` [PATCH v2] lockfile: allow reopening a closed but still locked file Junio C Hamano
2014-08-31 12:07 ` [PATCH v8 1/4] cache-tree: Create/update cache-tree on checkou John Keeping
2014-09-01 20:49 ` David Turner
2014-09-01 22:13 ` John Keeping
2014-09-02 20:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-09-02 21:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-09-02 21:24 ` [PATCH] cache-tree: propagate invalidation up when punting Junio C Hamano
2014-09-02 22:39 ` [PATCH v2] cache-tree: do not try to use an invalidated subtree info to build a tree Junio C Hamano
2014-09-03 2:56 ` David Turner
2014-09-03 12:02 ` Eric Sunshine
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq8unvy4bf.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=dturner@twitter$(echo .)com \
--cc=dturner@twopensource$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ramsay@ramsay1$(echo .)demon.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox