From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum•mit.edu>
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google•com>, Jeff King <peff@peff•net>,
git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:21:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqoamcypy4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiock1yq3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:57:56 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> I am not too worried about "push --atomic", as we can just add a few
> words to Release Notes and documentation saying "this is still an
> experimental broken code that is unusable; don't use the feature in
> production".
>
> I however am more worried about the other one "update-ref --stdin";
> the change will be pure regression for those who want to do many
> updates and do not care if the update is atomic, no?
I should have refrained from touching the keyboard so late at night
X-<. This regression was done long time ago (even in v2.1.0 I see
that ref_transaction_commit() tries to grab all locks at once).
So it is only "push --atomic".
The choice is between (1) shipping "push --atomic" that is known to
be broken, (2) applying your five-patch series which may (a) fix
both "push --atomic" and "update-ref --stdin", or (b) break other
transaction users including "update-ref -stdin" in unexpected ways.
I dunno. I am still tempted to go route (2) hoping that it would
result in (2-a) not (2-b).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-25 19:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-24 11:35 [PATCH 0/5] Avoid file descriptor exhaustion in ref_transaction_commit() Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 11:35 ` [PATCH 1/5] write_ref_to_lockfile(): new function, extracted from write_ref_sha1() Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 11:35 ` [PATCH 2/5] commit_ref_update(): " Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 11:35 ` [PATCH 3/5] write_ref_sha1(): inline function at callers Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 11:35 ` [PATCH 4/5] ref_transaction_commit(): remove the local flags variables Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 17:30 ` Jeff King
2015-04-24 21:15 ` Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 21:19 ` Jeff King
2015-04-24 21:51 ` Eric Sunshine
2015-04-24 22:22 ` Michael Haggerty
2015-04-24 11:35 ` [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time Michael Haggerty
2015-04-25 6:08 ` Michael Haggerty
2015-04-25 6:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-25 19:21 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2015-04-28 4:36 ` Jeff King
2015-04-24 17:26 ` [PATCH 0/5] Avoid file descriptor exhaustion in ref_transaction_commit() Jeff King
2015-04-24 19:13 ` Stefan Beller
2015-04-25 19:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-25 4:28 ` Junio C Hamano
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=xmqqoamcypy4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum$(echo .)mit.edu \
--cc=peff@peff$(echo .)net \
--cc=sbeller@google$(echo .)com \
/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