Re: [PATCH 07/23] expire_reflog(): use a lock_file for rewriting the reflog file

> Michael Haggerty wrote:
> 
> > We don't actually need the locking functionality, because we already
> > hold the lock on the reference itself, which is how the reflog file is
> > locked. But the lock_file code still does some of the bookkeeping for
> > us and is more careful than the old code here was.
> 
> As you say, the ref lock takes care of mutual exclusion, so we do not
> have to be too careful about compatibility with other tools that might
> not know to lock the reflog.  And this is not tying our hands for a
> future when I might want to lock logs/refs/heads/topic/1 while
> logs/refs/heads/topic still exists as part of the implementation of
> "git mv topic/1 topic".
> 
> Stefan and I had forgotten about that guarantee when looking at that
> kind of operation --- thanks for the reminder.