From: Karthik Nayak Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 15:38:37 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] fetch: fix non-conflicting tags not being committed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > Karthik Nayak writes: > >>> perform. Namely, we do not >>> >>> - call commit_fetch_head() >>> >>> - run set_upstream processing >>> >>> - honor do_set_head flag that was left for remote that does not >>> have followremotehead=never >>> >>> but don't we want to do some of them at least? >>> >> >> Thanks for bringing this up. I would think we should do all of these, >> but not if the '--atomic' flag is used. If the '--atomic' flag is used, >> we shouldn't do anything else and simply skip to the end. > > True. > > So when not "--atomic", the code with these two patches will still > misbehave, but it is not a regression these two patches causes. > Failing to do any of the above three when "--atomic" is not in > effect is a part of original regression in the previous cycle caused > by the "batched ref updates". These two patches are trying to > address the regression, but these three points are not covered. Am > I reading the situation correctly? Yes you're. > >> That said, we could either append this change as a new commit with some >> additional tests and re-roll the series or send it as a separate commit >> based on this series. I'd prefer the latter so that we have the fix for >> fetching tags merged sooner, but happy to do either. > > Either is fine, as this won't make Git 2.52, it seems. It is OK as > it is not a new regression, but it still is a recent one, and would > be nice if we have something concrete to address it soon after 2.52. > > Thanks. Ah well, I have something locally already. So will include it in this series and push a new version with the once I see greens on the CI [1]. Thanks, Karthik [1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/git/-/merge_requests/444