Re: reference-transaction regression in 2.36.0-rc1
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Apr 27, 2022, 11:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YmkjfyB3gIQ2t45V@ncase>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAJDSCnOUQm-doY-xTobPk64oeiSsTd+vSFzsb_cz9BLORAxXGA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks a lot to all of you for handling this regression while I was out of office!
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:54:19AM +0200, Michael Heemskerk wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Apologies for the late reply. Bryan had his last day at Atlassian last > week, so I'll take over from him on this topic. > > Thanks for asking this question, which is lot more urgent and I > > should have asked last night before I went to bed. Yes, Bryan > > already said that the revert in 'seen' the previous day made their > > system happier, but it certainly helps to know the reverts were OK > > at the tip of 'master' without all the other random topics. > > > > I have run all our tests on the tip of master prior to 2.36 being released, > and on the released 2.36. Our tests are happy on both, so thanks for > reverting those reference-transaction changes for 2.36. > > I'd be happy to provide the fix to files_delete_refs in a patch (including > some extra tests) on top of Patrick's > avoid-unnecessary-hook-invocation-with-packed-refs series if and > when that series is unreverted on 'next'.
That would be great. To be clear, do the fixes you have also fix the pre-v2.36.0 issues Bryan has mentioned?
Please let me know whether you want to pursue this and whether you need any further help with it.
Patrick