Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] replay: make atomic ref updates the default behavior

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 2, 2025, 22:55 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGcbdygEjndAjXo9utUhTac7JTHscX4iiwk4UZcHonXvg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0POvYDgGtEx8GBhvKkd8XzzWQsy8XxAKL9M3+uz3ka+w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Christian,

Excellent review, I just have one tangential question for you...

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:24 AM Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 1:09 AM Siddharth Asthana
> <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The git replay command currently outputs update commands that must be
> > piped to git update-ref --stdin to actually update references:
> >
> >     git replay --onto main topic1..topic2 | git update-ref --stdin
> >
> > This design has significant limitations for server-side operations. The
> > two-command pipeline creates coordination complexity, provides no atomic
> > transaction guarantees by default, and complicates automation in bare
> > repository environments where git replay is primarily used.
>
> Yeah, right.

I'm unsure if you are expressing disbelief, or agreeing when you use this phrase. Most commonly when I see it, I assume the former (see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/yeah-right and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yeah for example), but I think you've consistently used this with the opposite connotation. Am I correct on that? (This is a particular phrase where tone of voice used would be really helpful, which doesn't get included in emails unfortunately.)