From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] "-x" tracing option for tests Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20141014134415.GA20675@peff.net> References: <20141010060636.GA15057@peff.net> <20141013210729.GA15969@peff.net> <543CE44E.5050009@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 14 15:44:29 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 1Xe2Op-0004rA-UY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:44:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932315AbaJNNoV (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:21 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58310 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755316AbaJNNoT (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 11715 invoked by uid 102); 14 Oct 2014 13:44:19 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:44:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 16041 invoked by uid 107); 14 Oct 2014 13:44:16 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:16 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:44:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <543CE44E.5050009@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> 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). :) > > FWIW I think we are on path (1). Good. :) I was preparing this to re-send, but I realized there is one snag. I mentioned that we should probably be ignoring already-broken links from recent objects to missing objects. For the traversal in pack-objects, we can use revs->ignore_missing_links for this. But for the one in git-prune itself, we use mark_reachable, which does not respect that option. I think mark_reachable's traversal is essentially the same as the one in list-objects.c, and the two can be merged. I'll look into that, but I ran out of time for it tonight (er, this morning. Oops). -Peff