Re: [PATCH] git: add --no-optional-locks option

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 22, 2017, 15:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20170922150438.whslnn4qkamdhewr@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <dcd542e9-ba92-4dc8-6929-2d0f02bd6307@jeffhostetler.com>

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 07:22:28AM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> > > I don't think we should pass this environment variable to remote
> > > repositories. It should be listed in local_repo_env[] in environment.c.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I agree. This is really about the context in which the
> > command is executing, not anything about the particular repository
> > you're operating on.
> > 
> > For fetch/push operations that touch a remote, I doubt it would matter
> > either way (and anyway, those often cross network boundaries that don't
> > propagate environment variables anyway).
> > 
> > But imagine that "git status" learns to recurse into submodules and run
> > "git status" inside them. Surely we would want the submodule repos to
> > also avoid taking any unnecessary locks?
> > 
> > -Peff
> > 
> 
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/ff63b51c22389139a864eb2e565c6cdc5a30f061
> 
> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/pull/1004/commits/45bad66192352481acbc826f11d90c8928b39a7a
> 
> We should compare this with what we did in Git for Windows last fall.
> I guess those commits didn't get pushed upstream.

Right. I think you missed the initial message in the thread that explains how this is an expanded version of ff63b51c22. :)

I didn't know about the environment thing in 45bad66192, though[1]. That makes me even more confident that this is the right approach.

-Peff

[1] Sorry for not doing my homework more carefully on the existing
    solution.  GitHub Desktop ran into the same situation and pointed me
    at ff63b51c22. I extrapolated the rest of it on my own. ;)