From: Karthik Nayak Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 22:35:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] fetch: fix failed batched updates skipping operations Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Patrick Steinhardt writes: [snip] >> diff --git a/t/t5510-fetch.sh b/t/t5510-fetch.sh >> index 4b113d7c27..a1ca4e1ac7 100755 >> --- a/t/t5510-fetch.sh >> +++ b/t/t5510-fetch.sh >> @@ -1639,6 +1639,94 @@ test_expect_success "backfill tags when providing a refspec" ' >> test_cmp expect actual >> ' >> >> +test_expect_success REFFILES "FETCH_HEAD is updated even if ref updates fail" ' >> + test_when_finished rm -rf base repo && >> + >> + git init base && >> + ( >> + cd base && >> + test_commit "updated" && >> + >> + git update-ref refs/heads/foo @ && >> + git update-ref refs/heads/branch @ >> + ) && >> + >> + git init --bare repo && >> + ( >> + cd repo && >> + rm -f FETCH_HEAD && >> + git remote add origin ../base && >> + >refs/heads/foo.lock && > > Hm. Is this compatible with all supported systems? We typically write > this as: > > : >refs/heads/foo.lock > > But I have to acknowledge that I only do this because some people that > are more knowledgeable than I am know that we need this. > > Other than that I'm happy with the current state of this patch series. > If the above turns out to be a non-issue I think it should be ready for > 'next'. > I didn't know about this. The CI didn't complain about this too. A quick search through our repo shows $ rg --stats '^\s*>[\w/.-]+' t/ ... 969 matches 969 matched lines 285 files contained matches ... $ rg --stats '^\s*:\s*>[\w/.-]+' t/ ... 188 matches 188 matched lines 58 files contained matches ... So seems like we use both, meaning, this should be okay? > Thanks! > > Patrick Thanks for the review. Since the other comment was a nit. I will hold off on sending a new version :)