Re: [PATCH 00/22] Lockfile refactoring and pre-activation
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 1, 2014, 20:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140401204447.GJ21715@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1396367910-7299-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:58:08PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> I've had this patch series kicking around for a long time, along with > some followup patches to fix a race in reference deletion. I haven't > had the time to get everything done and tested, but let me at least > push this first series out there. I especially want to submit it in > case we accept a GSoC student for the project "Refactor tempfile > handling", because (1) I don't want me and the student to be stepping > on each others' toes, and (2) there are some cleanups and > documentation improvements here that will hopefully be useful to the > student.
Thanks, this sort of preparation for GSoC students is very much welcome.
Show 8 quoted lines
> The first patch actually demonstrates the race condition that I hope > to fix someday. The last patch introduces the lockfile feature that I > think is needed to fix it: the ability to activate a packed-refs file > while still holding the lock to prevent another process from > overwriting it before the accompanying loose reference updates are all > finished. But the fix itself is not included here, so you might want > to keep the last patch on hold until there is a concrete user of the > feature.
I should have read this more carefully when I responded to the final patch. I surmised your intent based on our previous work on packed-refs, but here you spell out my guesses explicitly. :)
I think all of the patches look good. I'd prefer to hold back the final one (and probably 19/22, which has no purpose except to prepare for 22/22) until seeing its application in practice.
Thanks for a very pleasant read.
-Peff