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

>
> On 08/10/25 19:31, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > Hi Siddharth
> >
> > On 02/10/2025 23:20, Siddharth Asthana wrote:
> >> On 30/09/25 15:35, Phillip Wood wrote:
> >>> On 27/09/2025 00:08, Siddharth Asthana wrote:
> >>>> The git replay command currently outputs update commands that must be
> >>>> piped to git update-ref --stdin to actually update references:
> >>
> >> The actual advantages of the new default aren't about atomicity (that
> >> already exists), but rather:
> >> - Eliminating the pipeline for the common case
> >> - Better ergonomics for users who just want refs updated
> >> - Simpler server-side automation
> >>
> >> I will rewrite the commit message to accurately reflect this. Elijah
> >> provided a good suggested structure that captures the real trade-offs
> >> without false claims.
> >
> > That's great. I agree that having replay update the refs itself is a
> > useful improvement.
> >
> >>>> +--allow-partial::
> >>>> +    Allow some ref updates to succeed even if others fail. By
> >>>> default,
> >>>> +    ref updates are atomic (all succeed or all fail). With this
> >>>> option,
> >>>> +    failed updates are reported as warnings rather than causing
> >>>> the entire
> >>>> +    command to fail. The command exits with code 0 only if all
> >>>> updates
> >>>> +    succeed; any failures result in exit code 1. Cannot be used with
> >>>> +    `--output-commands`.
> >>>
> >>> Rather than having two incompatible options perhaps we could have a
> >>> single "--update-refs=(yes|print|allow-partial-updates)" argument. I
> >>> think the name "--allow-partial" is rather ambiguous as it does not
> >>> say what it is allowing to be partial.
> >>
> >> After thinking about this and Elijah's feedback, I am leaning toward
> >> dropping --allow-partial entirely since I don't have a concrete use case
> >> for it. That simplifies things to just: default atomic updates vs
> >> --output-commands for the traditional pipeline.
> >>
> >> Would you still prefer a --update-refs=<mode> style, or is the simpler
> >> --output-commands flag sufficient given that --allow-partial is going
> >> away?
> >
> > The advantage of --update-refs=<mode> is that it allows for future
> > extensions such as adding support for partial in a way that does not
> > add conflicting options.
>
>
> That's a good point about extensibility. Elijah suggested
> --[no-]update-refs
> which is simpler but less extensible.
>
> Between:
> - --[no-]update-refs (simple, covers current needs)
> - --update-refs=<mode> (extensible for future modes)
>
> I am inclined toward the simpler --[no-]update-refs for now since we don't
> have concrete plans for other modes. But if you think the extensibility is
> important, I can go with the =<mode> style. What do you think?