Re: a less-invasive racy-leak fix, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2024, #11; Mon, 30)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 2, 2025, 19:06 UTC
Message-ID: <20250102190623.GA848764@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzfk9uvjd.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 06:42:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > I wonder if revert should have a "squash" mode that reverts all of the
> > commits (perhaps in reverse order of application in case they depend on
> > each other textually), and then gives you a commit message template
> > similar to git-fmt-merge-msg, where we list all of the commits, one per
> > line (though probably with their commit ids in this case).
> 
> I am not sure if I follow.  Should "revert HEAD~3..HEAD" give such
> concatenation of messages, something similar to what "rebase -i"
> gives us when seeing multiple "squash"es in a row?

I don't think we need to concatenate all of the individual revert messages. I was thinking of producing something more like:

  <SUBJECT: DESCRIBE YOUR REVERT HERE>

  Revert the following commits:

     - 7a8d9efc26 (grep: work around LSan threading race with barrier, 2024-12-29)
     - 526c0a851b (index-pack: work around LSan threading race with barrier, 2024-12-29)
     - 7d0037b59a (thread-utils: introduce optional barrier type, 2024-12-29)

You could perhaps even auto-populate the subject with:

  Revert jk/lsan-race-with-barrier~3..jk/lsan-race-with-barrier

similar to how git-merge uses "Merge branch ...". But it's a little clunky to read, and unlike merge, it's a lot easier to use names that are not very meaningful (e.g., I checked out a new branch based on that one and then used HEAD~3..HEAD, which is worthless to mention).

-Peff