From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] "-x" tracing option for tests Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:07:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20141013210729.GA15969@peff.net> References: <20141010060636.GA15057@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Michael Haggerty To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 13 23:07:37 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xdmq8-0007iv-VU for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:07:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752778AbaJMVHd (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:07:33 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58062 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751188AbaJMVHc (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:07:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 16048 invoked by uid 102); 13 Oct 2014 21:07:32 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:07:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 28462 invoked by uid 107); 13 Oct 2014 21:07:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:07:34 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:07:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > These patches are pulled out of the prune-mtime series I posted > > earlier[1]. The discussion veered off and there's no reason that the two > > topics need to be part of the same series. > > These look all sensible. > > Is your plan to reroll the prune-mtime stuff on top of these? The > additional safety those patches would give us is valuable and they > are pretty straight-forward---I was hoping to have them in the 2.2 > release. Yes, I've delayed while thinking about the issues that Michael raised. There are basically two paths I see: 1. These do not solve all problems/races, but are a solid base and sensible path forward for further changes which we can worry about later. 2. There is a better way to provide prune safety, and these patches will get in the way of doing that. I wanted to make sure we are on path (1) and not path (2). :) I'll try to send out a re-roll tonight. -Peff