git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

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

From
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date
Sep 22, 2017, 21:41 UTC
Message-ID
<CAGZ79kYJH-4qb5hiT1C_aCFXLcdiJs5h+Z7Goz4trp52C5s3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20170922212525.kxldygbjrmjqu7ci@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 01:09:32PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> You can teach Git to recurse into submodules already at home,
>> just 'git config status.submoduleSummary none'. ;)
>>
>> It occurs to me that the config name is badly choosen, as it stores
>> an argument for git status --ignore-submodules[=mode]
>
> Ah, thanks. I _thought_ we could already do that but when I went looking
> for the standard --recursive option I couldn't find it.
Thanks for checking for submodules there.

I personally prefer --recurse-submodules despite the longer name, because a plain recursive option can mean anything in a sufficiently complex program such as Git (recurse into the tree (c.f. ls-tree), or for the algorithm used (c.f. merge, diff) or yet another dimension I did not think of).

> So yes, I would think we would want this option to apply recursively in
> that case, even when we cross repository boundaries.

Regarding the actual patch which is heavily aimed at coping with IDEs despite the command line being used, I wonder how many IDEs pass --ignore-submodules and recurse themselves (if needed). Reason for my suspicion is [1] which does pay attention to submodules:

>    Our application calls status including the following flags:
>    --porcelain=v2 --ignored --untracked-files=all --ignore-submodules=none
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/2bbb1d0f-ae06-1878-d185-112bd51f75c9@gmail.com/
There might be another option to cope with the situation:
 4. Teach all commands to spinlock / busywait shortly for important
     locks instead of giving up. In that case git-status rewriting
     the index ought to be fine?

Thanks, Stefan

Previous: Jeff KingNext: Jeff King
Message 11 of 26 in “git: add --no-optional-locks option”
  1. git: add --no-optional-locks optionJeff King, Sep 21, 2017
  2. Junio C HamanoSep 21, 2017
  3. Jeff KingSep 21, 2017
  4. Junio C HamanoSep 21, 2017
  5. Johannes SixtSep 21, 2017
  6. Jeff KingSep 22, 2017
  7. Jeff HostetlerSep 22, 2017
  8. Jeff KingSep 22, 2017
  9. Stefan BellerSep 22, 2017
  10. Jeff KingSep 22, 2017
  11. Stefan BellerSep 22, 2017
  12. Jeff KingSep 23, 2017
  13. Stefan BellerSep 25, 2017
  14. Jeff KingSep 27, 2017
  15. Daniel SantosSep 22, 2017
  16. Jeff KingSep 22, 2017
  17. Kaartic SivaraamSep 24, 2017
  18. Johannes SchindelinSep 25, 2017
  19. Jeff HostetlerSep 26, 2017
  20. Johannes SchindelinSep 25, 2017
  21. Jeff KingSep 25, 2017
  22. git: add --no-optional-locks optionJeff King, Sep 27, 2017
  23. Johannes SchindelinSep 28, 2017
  24. Jeff KingSep 27, 2017
  25. Kaartic SivaraamSep 27, 2017
  26. Jeff KingSep 27, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.