From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: "Gábor Szeder" <szeder@ira.uka.de>
Cc: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:46:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140825124631.GC17288@peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1XLXkh-0002sL-IJ@iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de>
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:22:41PM +0700, Gábor Szeder wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2014 12:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash
> > state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a
> > stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external
> > programs should never do this, because they would miss
> > packed-refs.
>
> Not sure whether the prompt script is external program or not, but
> doesn't matter, this is the right thing to do.
Yeah, by external I just meant "nothing outside of refs.c should make
this assumption".
> > That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack
> > refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the
> > ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix
> > that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> > ---
> > I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all,
> > that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of
> > this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe.
>
> I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly (don't have the means to
> check it at the moment, sorry) in that commit I also added a 'git
> pack-ref' invocation to the relevant test(s?) to guard us against
> breakages due to changes in 'git pack-refs'. If that is so, then I
> think those invocations should be removed as well, as they'll become
> useless.
It did add that change (that's actually how I noticed the problem!
Thank you for being thorough in dd0b72c). My inclination is to leave the
pack-refs invocations, as they protect against a certain class of errors
(we are not doing the risky behavior now, but the purpose of the test
suite is to detect regressions; the next person to touch that code may
not be so careful as you were).
I don't feel too strongly, though, so if we want them gone, I'm OK with
that.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-25 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-24 13:22 [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR Gábor Szeder
2014-08-25 12:46 ` Jeff King [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-08-23 5:23 [PATCH 0/5] fix pack-refs pruning of refs/foo Jeff King
2014-08-23 5:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR Jeff King
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=20140825124631.GC17288@peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=sahlberg@google.com \
--cc=szeder@ira.uka.de \
/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).