From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/39] api-lockfile: revise and expand the documentation Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:11:36 +0200 Message-ID: <542BB738.9080100@alum.mit.edu> References: <1411726119-31598-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <1411726119-31598-3-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <542AB323.4080402@alum.mit.edu> <20140930161543.GA10581@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Johannes Sixt , =?windows-1252?Q?Torsten_B=F6gershaus?= =?windows-1252?Q?en?= , Ronnie Sahlberg , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 01 10:12:03 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 1XZF10-0005ne-QO for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:12:03 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751053AbaJAIL6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:11:58 -0400 Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu ([18.7.68.19]:65069 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944AbaJAILz (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:11:55 -0400 X-AuditID: 12074413-f79ed6d000002501-56-542bb73b9584 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D9.7B.09473.B37BB245; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.69.130] (p5DDB1FCB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.219.31.203]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s918BavI021601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:11:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.0 In-Reply-To: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqGu9XTvE4NEPC4uuK91MFg29V5gt nsy9y2zx9uYSRosfLT3MFv8m1Fh0dnxldGD32DnrLrvHgk2lHg9fdbF7POvdw+hx8ZKyx+dN ch63n21jCWCP4rZJSiwpC85Mz9O3S+DO+HbgGHNBF3fFjA/dTA2Mdzm6GDk5JARMJN6sP8wO YYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAyo8SVeQvYIZxzTBI7N61hA6niFdCW+PN9JwuIzSKgKjFvwX9mEJtN QFdiUU8zE4gtKhAg8aHzASNEvaDEyZlPwOpFBBwlTjy4zgoylFngHaPE0j0TwVYLC/hLnFqx D6xBSGAuk8SdJXxdjBwcnALWEj8u6IGEmQX0JHZc/8UKYctLNG+dzTyBUWAWkhWzkJTNQlK2 gJF5FaNcYk5prm5uYmZOcWqybnFyYl5eapGuuV5uZoleakrpJkZIJAjvYNx1Uu4QowAHoxIP r0KCdogQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUV6urUAhvqT8lMqMxOKM+KLSnNTiQ4wSHMxKIrwTK4ByvCmJ lVWpRfkwKWkOFiVxXrUl6n5CAumJJanZqakFqUUwWRkODiUJXo5tQI2CRanpqRVpmTklCGkm Dk6Q4VxSIsWpeSmpRYmlJRnxoFiNLwZGK0iKB2ivGEg7b3FBYi5QFKL1FKMux7rOb/1MQix5 +XmpUuK8jCBFAiBFGaV5cCtgae8VozjQx8K8miBVPMCUCTfpFdASJqAlyWvAlpQkIqSkGhjl hJ8uvaSeG/343qw3L07EeSS1pt2/znMs9MjtI0+VI2WXPhd2T/ryRKDjL7OlZ8wW Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 09/30/2014 07:47 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 03:41:55PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> >>> I didn't fix it because IMO the correct fix is to add a stdio-oriented >>> entry point to the lockfile API, and teach the lockfile code to handle >>> closing the FILE correctly when necessary. >> >> I think so, too, after our discussion[1] surrounding 9540ce5 (refs: write >> packed_refs file using stdio, 2014-09-10). > > Yeah, but we already write packed-refs via stdio, so the stdio > oriented lockfile API entry points can no longer be just on the > mythical todo list but needs to become reality before we can merge > this topic sanely. That's not the fault of this topic, which just moves the text of the "rule" to a different place in the file. And neither is it the fault of Peff's change to write packed-refs via stdio. It is the fault of 60b9004 Use atomic updates to the fast-import mark file (2007-03-08) which also fdopen()ed then fclose()d a lock_file::fd, and of 0c0478c Document lockfile API (2008-01-16) which documented the "rule" that had already been broken. >>> But I didn't want to add even more changes to this patch series, so I am >>> working on this as a separate patch series. I hope to submit it soon. >> >> Yay. > > Yay. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu