Re: [PATCH 3/3] core: convert build-time USE_NSEC into runtime core.useNanosec

[Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>]

> Le 14 août 2026 à 07:07, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 05:40:31PM -0400, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ok, CI run: https://github.com/benknoble/git/actions/runs/31701945211.
>> This demonstrates that nothing our test suite does across the many CI
>> configurations ends up where with a non-the_repository-repository
>> (ahem).
>> 
>> I have been working on control-flow analysis by hand in my Git time
>> this week. It's of the form "Z calls Y calls X …" until we can see
>> what the repository that's (eventually) fed to repo_config_values()
>> here in is_racy_stat() is. My notes are one node per line, which
>> indentation showing callee relationships. Some lines are pointers to
>> other nodes to avoid duplicating work.
>> 
>> With that in mind, filtering out the pointer nodes, I've analyzed 214
>> nodes in the graph. If I'm lucky, I'm approaching the halfway mark,
>> but I somewhat doubt it.
>> 
>> But since CI shows things work… I'd rather not continue the analysis
>> if we're satisfied for now. (Esp. since that will give me more Git
>> time back for reviewing ;) It being outside-of-work time, I only have
>> so much of it.)
>> 
>> A few other related things:
>> - Some of the edges of the graph appear to be public libgit.a
>> interfaces. That means we can't guarantee that only the_repository is
>> used.
>> - On a related note, I don't know how large the current "must only use
>> the_repository" (e.g., via repo_config_values()) surface area is right
>> now. Based on the partial analysis I mentioned above, this feels like
>> it's introducing (or at least contributing to) a rather large surface
>> area. So, this change might make it more critical to resolve the
>> limitation mentioned in the other thread. OTOH, I don't think this
>> change is likely to represent the only pervasive the_repository-only
>> limitation, and I'm afraid it will never land if it must be
>> the_repository clean (unless repo_settings is the_repository clean and
>> we decide that's an acceptable place for this member).
>> 
>> So, idk. If we're happy with the CI run + use of repo_config_values()
>> overall, I can send a v2 shortly (in next 24h), I think.
>> 
>> Thoughts? Strong opinions?
> 
> No strong opinions from my side, other than that we should stop
> converting everything to `repo_config_values()` until we have a plan for
> how to make it work with repositories other than `the_repository`.
> 
> I don't feel like holding this series in hostage though, so if your
> analysis and the test suite both say that this is probably fine then we
> may want to pursue it. Or we just use a global variable for it for the
> time being and then wait until the `repo_config_values()` dust has
> settled.
> 
> Patrick

Makes sense. I should have also mentioned that, of the nodes I’ve analyzed so far, they all terminate in a path that uses the_repository (some intermediate nodes are also exposed, though, as written previously).