Re: [PATCH 0/9] fetch: further ref-prefix cleanups and optimizations

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2025, 21:29 UTC
Message-ID: <Z9H8uKevHUxasE4S@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <20250309030101.GA2334064@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 06:27:03PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > Peff and I talked about this today, and neither of us could find any
> > reasons not to pursue the approach listed in the footnote of
> >
> >   <20250221072558.GA572877@coredump.intra.peff.net>
> >
> > , but this is a more conservative approach that should fix the issue and
> > apply cleanly on top of 'maint'. It may be worth picking this into 2.49,
> > even though we are already quite late into the -rc cycle, this is a
> > fairly nasty bug.
>
> Yeah, I favor doing this simple fix first, and then trying the larger
> (and slightly riskier) change on top.

Yeah, definitely. I think fixing the issue immediately is the most important thing we can do, but cleaning up the code (once the immediate issue has been resolved) is also worth doing.

> I started to write up that larger patch, and found a number of
> interesting things. ;) So here's a 9-patch series, which would apply on
> top of tb/fetch-follow-tags-fix (but can very much wait to cook in the
> next development cycle).

What?! You found other things to clean up along the way? Blasphemy.

Show 5 quoted lines

>  builtin/fetch.c        | 46 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  refspec.c              | 22 ++++++++++++++------
>  t/t5516-fetch-push.sh  | 12 ++++++-----
>  t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)

Kidding, of course, I am looking forward to reviewing it now.

Thanks, Taylor