Git development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Maciej Ciemborowicz <maciej.ciemborowicz@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Karthik Nayak" <karthik.188@gmail.com>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Phil Hord" <phil.hord@gmail.com>,
	"Elijah Newren" <newren@gmail.com>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	"D . Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 13:08:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arUEo7bzFJfOTTFY@pks.im> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a8401c448f527fd80c162908a2736811a723096.1790196627.git.maciej.ciemborowicz@gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 11:04:41PM +0200, Maciej Ciemborowicz wrote:
> Before 8198907795 (use delete_refs when deleting tags or branches,
> 2021-01-21), branch and tag deletion passed each resolved old OID to
> delete_ref(). This prevented the command from deleting a ref that another
> process had changed after it was inspected.
> 
> The conversion to batched deletion dropped those old OIDs. Besides making
> the deletions unconditional, this causes reference-transaction hooks to
> report zero as both the old and new OID.
> 
> Both commands still resolve the old OIDs before starting the deletion. Pass
> those values to refs_delete_refs(). This restores the old race protection
> and lets hooks receive useful old values without adding ref reads. If a ref
> changes concurrently, reject its deletion and preserve the new value.

Hm. The motivation makes sense to me, but I have to wonder whether we're
approaching it on the wrong level. With your proposed changes, we're now
not force-deleting the refs anymore, which is a user-visible change in
behaviour.

What you're after though is to always have an old object ID available
when the reference-transaction hook kicks in. But if that's the goal,
shouldn't we consider whether we can instead resolve the old value
during the transaction and queue that for the reftx hook, regardless of
whether or not the user has asked for an old object ID? That would now
cover _all_ users that modify refs without us having to update every
single callsite.

Sure, strictly speaking it's a backwards-incompatible change. But we've
always considered the reftx hook to be exposing internals, so we aren't
all that strict about retaining its behaviour and have allowed changes
in behaviour in the past. So I wouldn't mind if we adapted the hook to
always yield the old object ID.

Patrick

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-24 11:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-19 13:34 [BUG] reference-transaction reports zero OIDs for branch and tag deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 14:59 ` D. Ben Knoble
2026-09-19 15:42   ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 20:11     ` [PATCH 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 20:11       ` [PATCH 1/3] refs: allow callers to supply old OIDs for batch deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 20:41         ` Karthik Nayak
2026-09-20 10:38           ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-20 10:54           ` [PATCH v2 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-20 10:54             ` [PATCH v2 1/3] refs: allow callers to supply old OIDs for batch deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-21 13:12               ` Karthik Nayak
2026-09-21 23:55               ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-20 10:54             ` [PATCH v2 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-21 13:19               ` Karthik Nayak
2026-09-20 10:54             ` [PATCH v2 3/3] fetch, remote: retain old OIDs when pruning refs Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-21 13:56               ` Karthik Nayak
2026-09-21 13:57             ` [PATCH v2 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Karthik Nayak
2026-09-21 20:01               ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 12:26             ` [PATCH v3 " Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 12:26               ` [PATCH v3 1/3] refs: allow callers to supply old OIDs for batch deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 18:55                 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-22 19:21                   ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 23:31                     ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-22 12:26               ` [PATCH v3 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 12:26               ` [PATCH v3 3/3] fetch, remote: retain old OIDs when pruning refs Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 19:16                 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-22 22:29               ` [PATCH v4 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 22:31                 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] refs: allow callers to supply old OIDs for batch deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 22:31                 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-22 22:31                 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] fetch, remote: retain old OIDs when pruning refs Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-23 20:03                   ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-23 21:02                     ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-23 21:04                 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-23 21:04                   ` [PATCH v5 1/3] refs: allow callers to supply old OIDs for batch deletion Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-24 10:04                     ` Karthik Nayak
2026-09-24 16:34                       ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-24 19:43                       ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-24 11:07                     ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-24 16:45                       ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-24 20:13                         ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-28  6:44                           ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-28  6:43                         ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-09-24 19:56                       ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-23 21:04                   ` [PATCH v5 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-24 11:08                     ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2026-09-23 21:04                   ` [PATCH v5 3/3] fetch, remote: retain old OIDs when pruning refs Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-23 21:55                   ` [PATCH v5 0/3] refs: report old OIDs for batched deletions Junio C Hamano
2026-09-24 22:33                   ` [PATCH v6 0/1] refs: report old values to transaction hooks Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-24 22:33                     ` [PATCH v6 1/1] " Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-30  3:11                       ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-10-01 17:37                         ` Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 20:11       ` [PATCH 2/3] branch, tag: retain old OIDs in batched deletions Maciej Ciemborowicz
2026-09-19 20:11       ` [PATCH 3/3] fetch, remote: retain old OIDs when pruning refs Maciej Ciemborowicz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=arUEo7bzFJfOTTFY@pks.im \
    --to=ps@pks.im \
    --cc=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=ben.knoble@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
    --cc=maciej.ciemborowicz@gmail.com \
    --cc=newren@gmail.com \
    --cc=phil.hord@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox