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

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2025, 07:05 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD294t9qhQBjRS5cun4fwga0BseRHFmOapG0gpKS3r-6UQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGcbdygEjndAjXo9utUhTac7JTHscX4iiwk4UZcHonXvg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:55 AM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Excellent review, I just have one tangential question for you...
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:24 AM Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 1:09 AM Siddharth Asthana
> > <siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The git replay command currently outputs update commands that must be
> > > piped to git update-ref --stdin to actually update references:
> > >
> > >     git replay --onto main topic1..topic2 | git update-ref --stdin
> > >
> > > This design has significant limitations for server-side operations. The
> > > two-command pipeline creates coordination complexity, provides no atomic
> > > transaction guarantees by default, and complicates automation in bare
> > > repository environments where git replay is primarily used.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
>
> I'm unsure if you are expressing disbelief, or agreeing when you use
> this phrase.

I was agreeing with the general idea that having to pipe the output into `git update-ref --stdin` to actually update references has significant limitations (in particular for the server side use of the command I am interested in).

I didn't check every point, especially the "provides no atomic transaction guarantees by default", my bad.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Most commonly when I see it, I assume the former (see
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/yeah-right and
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yeah for example), but I
> think you've consistently used this with the opposite connotation.  Am
> I correct on that?  (This is a particular phrase where tone of voice
> used would be really helpful, which doesn't get included in emails
> unfortunately.)

Yes, you are correct. I knew that it could be used to express disbelief, but I thought that use was mostly a familiar oral one, and the context would make it clear that I was agreeing. I will be more careful when using it.