From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84433C433EF for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 13:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238840AbiCGNqG (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:46:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43816 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233140AbiCGNqE (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:46:04 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C73EF8BE2C for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 05:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w127so4762501oig.10 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 05:45:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nqSKMzKUs4jyJSFcbV4wi5aQPGqjgIH8RI+3mRlm+x8=; b=D5hANk/LsPrEXcTfI5NYH9uJCclI7Kz2ImgK2s+EdUqoV+iyziw83ukG1ICtMRYnBB ehou/UtLu9Qh1JmMi9v+TGU1XcW4k0tfwABCrUpHpwl/uXk/HGnO1teQlBiaeEMg4BIc yMmQeLD5YU3kxgH8Y0iTbHmFJi5vhUiOyHJ3BE9yX/5DSzKfwL2o1AYJnGByVhHHvSSB WSxfs2AG6sjaS83UH80UmS3NzdFvNocybJUa+jysO78kXhcWmmb1BPM4VGnvD9MTssv8 WoQ2ozSV492Ase36rHwRh7dVBh1swp/NoPrCBFvZmAG+Az0HmErfhMp3OtrwUBlmYyXF 0eyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nqSKMzKUs4jyJSFcbV4wi5aQPGqjgIH8RI+3mRlm+x8=; b=XgA5Tkd5AcX+E6yh/1B5AaXWdU+/3veeUQm4wH0mTltpVLHclCdWGW0pkstRPR5chG R75YPZpKLugGXsp5cKb4xfK5fPd5wbbHnjdlNgFQPv2v6abKYomGIjKAM4tt9OG+avHw noWSqDZ9YAoxUlOT6TiDUTOQmhAzdqcxYAq4kUhSdT5uVGTprBrHPTEkgAPfhf9Mc4Y1 zOSLE8SWJhDplcXlcYFh/icJ8zFGIOp8rD95tS5QF2LDiFLDZiqTArg41awlZjWzWaP+ IhmE0LfSiZh/JkFuj+0Fv+u4AwtnPXOz39ueQCoV75R9z16zNg2MvxmdzprLPZfRZ/cu K8bA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53258DMPFJnCfmjqFr2/ILAHRP5YetRljfot6/NCOFbZ/ETMvx2i jrc7GzCQekbhMb4NC+0fwlkH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJJ5DvHJNF+BRSp0ovEtWhrb04JWirr11ziJ0AwrKo8KAVXSxdhNLFlVhnHyQCc/pNrwgCsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1283:b0:2d9:a01a:48cd with SMTP id a3-20020a056808128300b002d9a01a48cdmr7925705oiw.280.1646660709113; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 05:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([99.85.27.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s4-20020a056808208400b002d54070f170sm6505087oiw.37.2022.03.07.05.45.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Mar 2022 05:45:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <94ed6a1e-327c-3f94-b98b-db019a6f5ada@github.com> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 08:45:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] commit-graph: start parsing generation v2 (again) Content-Language: en-US To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, gitster@pobox.com, abhishekkumar8222@gmail.com References: <1b9912f7-87be-2520-bb53-9e23529ad233@github.com> <33deae83-1afd-1645-82f3-5af14f14094d@github.com> <06ea3190-32d0-c792-0ae9-c5600305f158@github.com> From: Derrick Stolee In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/2022 5:34 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 09:03:15AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: >> On 3/3/2022 11:00 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote: ... >>> I will continue investigating and try to reproduce with this >>> additional constraint of working across an alternate. >> >> My attempts to reproduce this across an alternate have failed. I >> tried running the following test against Git without these patches, >> then verify with the newer version of Git. (I also have generated >> a few new layers on top with these patches, and they correctly drop >> the GDA2 and GDO2 chunks when the lower layers "don't have gen v2".) >> >> >> test_description='commit-graph with offsets across alternates' >> . ./test-lib.sh >> >> if ! test_have_prereq TIME_IS_64BIT || ! test_have_prereq TIME_T_IS_64BIT >> then >> skip_all='skipping 64-bit timestamp tests' >> test_done >> fi >> >> >> UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO="@0 +0000" >> FUTURE_DATE="@4147483646 +0000" >> >> GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH_CHANGED_PATHS=0 >> >> test_expect_success 'generate alternate split commit-graph' ' >> git init alternate && >> ( >> cd alternate && >> test_commit --date "$UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO" 1 && >> test_commit --date "$FUTURE_DATE" 2 && >> git commit-graph write --reachable && >> test_commit --date "$UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO" 3 && >> test_commit --date "$FUTURE_DATE" 4 && >> git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge >> ) && >> git clone --shared alternate fork && >> ( >> cd fork && >> test_commit --date "$UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO" 5 && >> test_commit --date "$FUTURE_DATE" 6 && >> git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge && >> test_commit --date "$UNIX_EPOCH_ZERO" 7 && >> test_commit --date "$FUTURE_DATE" 8 && >> git commit-graph write --reachable --split=no-merge >> ) >> ' >> >> test_done >> >> >> My testing after running this with -d allows me to reliably see these >> layers being created with GDAT and GDOV chunks. Running the 'git >> commit-graph verify' command with the new code does not show those >> errors, even after adding commits and another layer to the split >> commit-graph. >> >> I look forward to any additional insights you might have here. > > I don't really know why, but now I've become unable to reproduce it > again. I think we should just go with your patch 5/4 on top -- it does > fix the most important issue, which is the `die()` I saw on almost all > commands. The second part about the warnings I'm just not sure about, > but I don't think it should stop this patch series given my own > uncertainty. Thanks for following up. I agree that with 5/4 we should be safe. I'll remain available to quickly respond if anything else surprising comes up in this area. Thanks! -Stolee