All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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).

  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.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=sbeller@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.