From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.153]) (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 6ED3E2F2E for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2025 04:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750566193; cv=none; b=JvxAcfKFTMJLcZzXN7XGCtkopSdLpFcYZjK/xBonSkycTlSNg8jMd6GuRU85XtX2trRggjnUNoITqWtigzf2+wxyeNlF6dsx0/b+LSPv31MO+36sGnNJseXNHszowV4duxiBVACL6Ry+mIbsktuA7q3LhR0jf1wUOxzr29D9484= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750566193; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aJwZJr9dn7d9aJFw3gFZgRVgjxPu/ujLRe53tnWW+5o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dclY9VELW3y2oCZBNCqm0QoTskQLdXLJTqRyvDjgIr2kHK+qsSwu94J0PWR9X+0AC+hCrkHVCkWW4ntrZTNJ7+2jT25mGtRc/tXNcYCgAK4Wt7tKVRZRgwaNi/9RzfVtRVX04c89ZooMjew/P4mcEpYnHophxcqUImygwLJYZT8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=CcFyxNaf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Tq9pz8Wh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="CcFyxNaf"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Tq9pz8Wh" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4212540095; Sun, 22 Jun 2025 00:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 22 Jun 2025 00:23:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc: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=1750566190; x=1750652590; bh=9TD5OoVrD+ 0NQ5k/m/3Gnm/7278qjm5DzDJtl8ZUtu8=; b=CcFyxNafwVJ1k+f8KELqcpKHIA 2yoM5t5OL1/VJ2TMues7ps7iOAfFWK9YjkH7UhFhaNR1jA6xLVRDbNvxclVisfW+ ogb1h6Ssd2fx8U8AmBwoOidJ+sTE7Ah9tAPXWWRmexqN2hTaLN+B83R3+/Pqr2+N ltKYcbJ1AIua/8iEABKbWhOT2sCx6JomtnnigolsPqZNDqFom0En0/pFT+ltwTGG n7P8WizeqkqErfpOJ283Zwjs9ua6o2JaKqvBYcWkqaDYj/qDyYtV8m6Uh7ifRVUW ZriWCoIYid/BG4AszgTY+1Cd1L/+8ZKsYCFX3WdjxZmh+QJdebRE9Fc90rbQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc: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= 1750566190; x=1750652590; bh=9TD5OoVrD+0NQ5k/m/3Gnm/7278qjm5DzDJ tl8ZUtu8=; b=Tq9pz8Whfqsw7ppJjq1zDYLn9aT0773Zchkr/9uxVx5yozFQiDh 0yy2rH6p8aBS2r8HoiwDqn6PkVeDE1RqOda9W9+6Pf75DqYJ2NE00dhpmHWUXKtr iVJUdQdl02TCWSKl8b5BYqEGPWAG1A+pYoTGo4FDetF5iDtKzB/K2V4lhpjP3Arb nL4C4YzDYBM/EiGLk5fPNNS1jzgOU/yqeg521iP34k/VuQXw6rZiIYQgrpK5s0uB nuV9R5ferTRMTdYkzqthC9LN1dsdg+wiVLZxwHHxBmK2FqzNQR3jJnKSTPEKwKKT E10D1gitQclJBpbwHnGy9NugiPTYrDTImtw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddvgddufedulecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieeg ieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeejpdhmohguvgepshhm thhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehkrghrthhhihhkrddukeeksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpd hrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehj lhhtohgslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpd hrtghpthhtohepshhunhhshhhinhgvsehsuhhnshhhihhnvggtohdrtghomhdprhgtphht thhopegthhhrihhstghoohhlsehtuhigfhgrmhhilhihrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 22 Jun 2025 00:23:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jltobler@gmail.com, ps@pks.im, sunshine@sunshineco.com, Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] refs: fix some bugs with batched-updates In-Reply-To: (Karthik Nayak's message of "Sat, 21 Jun 2025 04:08:22 -0700") References: <20250602-6769-address-test-failures-in-the-next-branch-caused-by-batched-reference-updates-v1-0-903d1db3f10e@gmail.com> <20250620-6769-address-test-failures-in-the-next-branch-caused-by-batched-reference-updates-v5-0-f35ee6b59a82@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 21:23:07 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Karthik Nayak writes: >> Just to let you know, as these two are fixups to the topic that are >> no longer in 'next' as we rewound the tip of 'next' after release, >> if you want, you can redo the base topic instead of piling small >> fixes on top. >> > > Well the first patch in this series, is a bug fix for master since we > already have batched updates exposed via git-update-ref(1). So only the > second patch can be squashed in. > > That said, while it is easier for me to not re-roll, I'd happy to do so, > what do you think? I'll let you decide; please choose whichever way you consider would give us the better result. The second one seems to be a band-aid that trades one bug with another bug, so it may be prudent to leave it separate. It would make it easier for a future change that fixes the lower-layer transaction processing to refer to it, with "earlier we took thw two step approach, which had these downsides. now we fix the issue for real". Thanks.