From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 06/41] refs.c: add an err argument to repack_without_refs
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 11:17:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140529181732.GF12314@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1401379676-9307-2-git-send-email-sahlberg@google.com>
Hi,
Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> Update repack_without_refs to take an err argument and update it if there
> is a failure. Pass the err variable from ref_transaction_commit to this
> function so that callers can print a meaningful error message if _commit
> fails due to a problem in repack_without_refs.
>
> Add a new function unable_to_lock_message that takes a strbuf argument and
> fills in the reason for the failure.
>
> In commit_packed_refs, make sure that we propagate any errno that
> commit_lock_file might have set back to our caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
> ---
> cache.h | 2 ++
> lockfile.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> refs.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this still has the
same issues I described before at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/250197/focus=250309.
The commit message or documentation or notes after the three dashes
above could explain what I missed when making my suggestions.
Otherwise I get no reality check as a reviewer, other reviewers get
less insight into what's happening in the patch, people in the future
looking into the patch don't understand its design as well, etc.
As a general rule, that is a good practice anyway --- even when a
reviewer was confused, what they got confused about can be an
indication of where to make the code or design documentation (commit
message) more clear, and when reposting a patch it can be a good
opportunity to explain how the patch evolved.
What would be wrong with the line of API documentation and the TODO
comment for a known bug I suggested? If they are a bad idea, can you
explain that so I can learn from it? Or if they were confusing, would
you like a patch that explains what I mean?
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-29 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-29 16:07 [PATCH v12 00/44] Use ref transactions for all ref updates Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 06/41] refs.c: add an err argument to repack_without_refs Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 18:17 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2014-06-03 20:55 ` Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 08/41] refs.c: add an err argument to delete_ref_loose Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 16/41] refs.c: add transaction.status and track OPEN/CLOSED/ERROR Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 24/41] receive-pack.c: use a reference transaction for updating the refs Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 25/41] fast-import.c: use a ref transaction when dumping tags Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 26/41] walker.c: use ref transaction for ref updates Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 31/41] refs.c: make prune_ref use a transaction to delete the ref Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 32/41] refs.c: make delete_ref use a transaction Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 33/41] refs.c: pass the ref log message to _create/delete/update instead of _commit Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 36/41] refs.c: move the check for valid refname to lock_ref_sha1_basic Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 38/41] refs.c: pass a skip list to name_conflict_fn Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 39/41] refs.c: propagate any errno==ENOTDIR from _commit back to the callers Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 40/41] fetch.c: change s_update_ref to use a ref transaction Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:07 ` [PATCH v12 41/41] refs.c: make write_ref_sha1 static Ronnie Sahlberg
2014-05-29 16:13 ` [PATCH v12 00/44] Use ref transactions for all ref updates Ronnie Sahlberg
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=20140529181732.GF12314@google.com \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=sahlberg@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).