Re: Concurrent fetch commands

> Currently, git doesn't seem to be very good at handling two concurrent
> invocations of git fetch (or git fetch and git pull). This is a problem
> because it is common for git clients to run git fetch periodically in
> the background. In that case, when you happen to invoke git pull while
> such a background fetch is running, an error occurs ("Cannot rebase 
> onto
> multiple branches").
> 
> I can reliably reproduce this by doing
> 
>    $ git fetch&; sleep 0.1; git pull
>    [1] 42160
>    [1]  + done       git fetch
>    fatal: Cannot rebase onto multiple branches.
> 
> The reason for this failure seems to be that both the first fetch and
> the fetch that runs as part of the pull append their information to
> .git/FETCH_HEAD, so that the information for the current branch ends up
> twice in the file.
> 
> Do you think git fetch should be made more robust against scenarios 
> like
> this?

> More context: the git client that I'm contributing to (lazygit) used to
> guard against this for its own background fetch with a global mutex 
> that
> allowed only one single fetch, pull, or push at a time. This solved the
> problem nicely for lazygit's own operations (at the expense of some 
> lag,
> occasionally); and I'm not aware of any reports about failures because
> some other git client's background fetch got in the way, so maybe we
> don't have to worry about that too much.
> 
> However, we now removed that mutex to allow certain parallel fetch
> operations to run at the same time, most notably fetching (and 
> updating)
> a branch that is not checked out (by doing "git fetch origin
> branch:branch"). It is useful to be able to trigger this for multiple
> branches concurrently, and actually this works fine.
> 
> But now we have the problem described above, where a pull of the
> checked-out branch runs at the same time as a background fetch; this is
> not so unlikely, because lazygit triggers the first background fetch at
> startup, so invoking the pull command right after starting lazygit is
> very likely to fail.
> 
> We could re-introduce a mutex and just make it a little less global;
> e.g. protect only pull and parameter-less fetch. But fixing it in git
> itself seems preferable to me.
> 
> Sorry for the wall of text, but I figured giving more context could be
> useful.