From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.158]) (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 A662119F438 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 19:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741202925; cv=none; b=Vj2y7+d0+0lnMsCIPtv7SWSZDC99GUMBn/Vjbo9YtMWYWX0U9RQT5UF8uRx9POlgCMyzRYAtysf59gxsaheFxp7UOIy0lULvPiqKL5TbU3SaUMbcRcp43aKEiXZKem5g9zYxpyDieYsVSiAoCF5vpudEY/yxcuOkmKpkTftzO5Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741202925; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OATucM0unpW7Qabo28112b1Fzffo3qMkha4BfrqTTB0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XcN2nequ9Qu9UIffRFMMvsmV2AiM8MGyZ6ook1jSWnViVT+LjrQxa2F59mk+VU587yM/jinnusy7Hx7Ec9b/tEqwJV/HDLWpJItTIcTbAGdb7HDfx8fMcyOO1QK7sh5o5mbmOUgpprF8yLfJd5wXlsj8EXY2LZQP1G6qgfXngP4= 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=Apl8Wlnb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=hMKinvJT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 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="Apl8Wlnb"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="hMKinvJT" Received: from phl-compute-07.internal (phl-compute-07.phl.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FA01140093; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-07.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Mar 2025 14:28:42 -0500 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=1741202922; x=1741289322; bh=9bBnR02c+w YkpxpVrwhtmMJumAFS/FctAaVejSX1vWA=; b=Apl8WlnbjnV0+livaGQ5okdnUK cFsHNY8+ggy+qj8dzOy18mamhphejzrLyC91WdDJwD/E4r5WONTaNhSd3f/ROVNL KOQ22V9ZQWX8P413hTAo31jspcVSf7M4ldK6wFOkGs0ta6QXQNJDTrWyhu4QJ/br MieR8c1Hdl+AJDyHhnjwp+mO1jMfdojPYngjeHwYpw6I/cN1ZBcEiffHHxUydnAr Mh37uI8majtKZK9llXtnEvenzdL6kUh4lTXqxVK35k291d+8mkyq9L1WU9XUb3S7 U04M5EhOyCycENg85BzpYieJxebNW6sSf9/nM/EEJS9rnd8V2mnmQVFvB4Sg== 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= 1741202922; x=1741289322; bh=9bBnR02c+wYkpxpVrwhtmMJumAFS/FctAaV ejSX1vWA=; b=hMKinvJTAmNUC6BByROSREr1muK5p85FWyPb1KIL8o/c+AaiAup P1VIv/55J1n46BaQq22lAJKwOZ4w7UBh97t/BilxyO341SB6XOhXulD7Ftq3aC0o VonpKIbpMe5DvJ5S/L3lG0rPrOJ2q04iydS0+xTMsDViNjIBfbdtZBFR4RiNYH0r omA+srsrIdmRIOojPiIiUCaUjMddZdfI98ZHnsP76wUu0M6lrCS0zIv/d1l8buqQ ME/Nt+wz3nvtHuuX+e2+ufyBNhHchPBJtxEVW8TOqgQ9W9xwswcZK6wWe0ibABCg neZS2fCRXRUIjp00UDu1ot7+kQuiliW5TsQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddutdehieejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepiedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikh drudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhn vghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehjlhhtoh gslhgvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougdu vdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtg homh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 14:28:41 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im, jltobler@gmail.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] refs: introduce support for partial reference transactions In-Reply-To: <20250305-245-partially-atomic-ref-updates-v3-0-0c64e3052354@gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2025 18:38:55 +0100") References: <20250207-245-partially-atomic-ref-updates-v1-0-e6a3690ff23a@gmail.com> <20250305-245-partially-atomic-ref-updates-v3-0-0c64e3052354@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 11:28:39 -0800 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: > Git's reference updates are traditionally all or nothing - when > updating multiple references in a transaction, either all updates > succeed or none do. I am quite confused. In the beginning (traditionally), there was no transaction to speak of. You try to update two refs at the same time, we did best effort but that was never atomic. Later we introduced transactions to optionally make the changes all-or-none. So, if you want "I have these N updates, but I do not care if some of them have to fail---just make your best effort to update as many of them as you can", why are you still doing a transaction? Perhaps it is merely the phrasing that makes this proposal confusing. If presented as "non-transactional batched updates", perhaps it may have been more palatable. I dunno, but "partial transaction" does not quite sound like a transaction, at least to me.