From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2F8E20E33F for ; Sat, 31 May 2025 09:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748685179; cv=none; b=G2limeiDps1DBreriaSVJtgeCT8J7q2L74IA/YzVdxpNjti4EXth5IjFWsQZ/l5CMuHxX4ufUEv9EGqs2sf1VIHJt08LgxihHNrWYwlpRYkcLkNW/AYZfrOLN42FU5GQbYyq6h+JcE9t6Pm0X5JxUicUH3j+GgQRfvAblWLsKZ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748685179; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CUSr3ooBZcNtWgDtHCXmhjUzp8rfcZTN/AJkhbrM2uc=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:Content-Type; b=K/jguGmj1QF4SRvX8SJEGxNQ2GO3RF9fZE8FpDzyH+lKJ9W8OC4dW9P3g/qzomKyFt2k57Jr7czWXAwTQdOuxJvmGS2f1j8yfVferRio9E9Q4/mLZwZBB52Fs36ZHY472GSmzl8hSE9vUznVRVFFv71myu71dEm0OR+QXZVttaU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=khaugsbakk.name; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=khaugsbakk.name; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=khaugsbakk.name header.i=@khaugsbakk.name header.b=k1xgbd97; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=FtSifwg+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=khaugsbakk.name Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=khaugsbakk.name Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=khaugsbakk.name header.i=@khaugsbakk.name header.b="k1xgbd97"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="FtSifwg+" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A167725400E7; Sat, 31 May 2025 05:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-07 ([10.202.2.97]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 31 May 2025 05:52:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=khaugsbakk.name; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1748685174; x=1748771574; bh=AHFHwL9kI6ZfEQMVxG01f4AfbksutrWP 1EW+/YLQFng=; b=k1xgbd9767pQjvIE7XaXvQh+cIn+JqTURx0qP+UlFtxo48Gn AATwvVLzN4sOv5F0cNuaFR7deJR7kLbXEYx0hpBNs91R0bCIWecoO38yG3NKftbr 1e6F7VWhJBuL7LncNoppYJQIQLkXgASxFzdGf7YNeNIdEqDTDq8YcPy3cOBIccGK 0VkE7XxCigB/hXvdNgx2+4yKv9oKZ33hWY5hJSlxLpNGR+okcsHEfTDGoEVv/Rrg v5PounVitOe5IelLDu2qq7vQD9aivte/Y3kMh0Y0RrTVfRX/zWHupzB41zY8ytnW VvV1QpkfCDM+bxSfKv0qYcpAEqsL/9MksRASFw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1748685174; x= 1748771574; bh=AHFHwL9kI6ZfEQMVxG01f4AfbksutrWP1EW+/YLQFng=; b=F tSifwg+eKFtZGwyDoTyVcWyqp7iANRFBb9wYsrMiKcHgQYWhV6IlludZEt08pVUn lK34OiCdPXawYoSws4O6AkYsOdkNQWxDiKG1VCoKxUY88kQQPtmj5tuJ40bBDJTW BP6Vk2QmbhfpBzE90IwBiClADVDqpXRiJfO0ezyUeaRJv4NKhGC/UXD4E9hkI6QV GTJvZbztJTwlxvs04ST3NUKpFAFb0hWxeFSRJqO1Y8xRDQ58iyhjqw9e0kK46l5i iWxyOAqyImuwyHh0ta08Wn4+AdkeqA4H1KsftnN5esGnXEl6zTBzfby1jKrytlot DUDUC6lFANgxJnc8TObqw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddtgdefudehleculddtuddrgeefvddrtd dtmdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggft fghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftd dtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefoggffhffvvefk jghfufgtgfesthhqredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfmrhhishhtohhffhgvrhcujfgruh hgshgsrghkkhdfuceotghouggvsehkhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffr rghtthgvrhhnpeefteeghfegfeevleeguddvkeetheeiveffudejlefgudffffejleffff eludekjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm pegtohguvgeskhhhrghughhssggrkhhkrdhnrghmvgdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepiedpmh houggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgs rghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekke esghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehshhgvjhhirghluhhosehgmhgrihhlrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehsuhhnshhhihhnvg esshhunhhshhhinhgvtghordgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghr nhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i2671468f:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8D0471EA0060; Sat, 31 May 2025 05:52:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThreadId: T55adab7ef7b76081 Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:52:33 +0200 From: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" To: "Eric Sunshine" , "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Patrick Steinhardt" , "Karthik Nayak" , shejialuo Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1d8f471b6dcb7e952afea834490be195189492a7.1748629208.git.code@khaugsbakk.name> Subject: Re: [BUG] refs: verify does not work if there are v2.43.0 or older worktrees w/o wt. refs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 31, 2025, at 00:23, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk >> Subject: [PATCH] t0602: demo v2.43.0 worktree problem >> >> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk > > Even though this is a bug report and the patch you included doesn't > provide a fix, you did craft a couple tests, presumably with the > intention that they should be used by whomever fixes the problem. As > such, I'll give them a bit of a critique... Yes if s/should/could.[1] These are reproduction scripts as patches. So they can be applied and show the current state (first test is expect-failed, the second is expect-success) of the code. My previous reproduction script with the git-clone(1) is inconvenient but either cloning or using a worktree is necessary in order to truly reproduce the problem (as opposed to simulating it). A `-subject-prefix=3D'PATCH THROWAWAY'` would have been in order. On the other hand I did write the first test (the second is ugly) as if I was doing a quote-unquote real patch. In that light learning more about the proper style is useful for me. So thanks for the review! > Overall, although the first new test makes sense, it is not at all > clear to me what the second test is checking or what its purpose is. The idea behind the second test was to show a case where it does work with old worktrees. But simulating the old worktree didn=E2=80=99t make= sense since it looks just like a new worktree when there *are* indeed worktree refs. So it just ended up being confusing. =E2=80=A0 1: As in troubleshooting and fixing the problem, not the final= test in the submitted patch. The test is unlikely to be good enough for that. But the patch is signed off on the small chance that it can be used because why not.