Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2025, #05; Fri, 17)

> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:22:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> * kn/reflog-migration-fix (2025-01-15) 1 commit
>> >>>   (merged to 'next' on 2025-01-16 at ae8f9ce9a0)
>> >>>  + reftable: write correct max_update_index to header
>> >>>  (this branch is used by kn/reflog-migration-fix-followup.)
>> >>> ...
>> >> This seems to be breaking on 'next'.
>> > ...
>> > reproduces the issue. I haven't found the root cause yet, but will
>> > mostly call it a day and get back to this tomorrow.
>>
>> We have a handful of topics related to refs subsystem in flight,
>> and I am a bit lost here.
>>
>> (1) kn/reflog-migration-fix (the above) was done as a "fix" for the
>>     issue reported by brian in
>>     https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z4UbkcmJAU1MT-Rs@tapette.crustytoothpaste.net/
>>
>> (2) You mention that (1) is broken in the message I am responding
>>     to.  There is no known fix yet, so (1) needs to wait in 'next'
>>     until it gets fixed.
>>
>> (3) kn/reflog-migration-fix-followup is a code clean-up for (1); it
>>     has to wait for (2) as well.
>>
>> (4) kn/reflog-symref-fix is a fix for a different bug the commit
>>     that introduced the bug (1) addresses.  It can proceed
>>     independently from the other topics.
>>
>> (5) ps/reflog-migration-with-logall-fix is another fix for a
>>    different bug introduced by the same series whose bugs are
>>    addressed by (1) and (4).  It can proceed independently from the
>>    other topics.
>>
>> The above is my current understanding; did I miss any other relevant
>> topics that are related to these efforts, and/or did I misunderstand
>> the dependencies among them?
>>
>> If I am not misunderstanding the current status of these topics,
>> I'll be marking (4) and (5) for 'next'; I am undecided for (3).
>
> Karthik has meanwhile sent a v2 [1] of the broken patch in (1) that
> fixes the issue discovered in (2). Given that (1) has already been in
> next, (2) probably needs to be rerolled to be a patch on top of what we
> already have in next.
>
> Other than that yes, I think (4) and (5) can be merged independently of
> (1) to (3).
>
> Patrick
>
> [1]: <20250123135613.748916-1-karthik.188@gmail.com>