git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] refs: run copy and rename through transactions

From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date
Oct 10, 2026, 00:22 UTC
Message-ID
<asmFLjno-vuuN1ZS@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To
<CACQ=SRHRp4vKpV5JagAXS1n4iX-LJ7fm78OwMGB5fke2CTC4FQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2026-10-08 at 19:06:32, Maciej Ciemborowicz wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> At this point, I face a moral dilemma, because the next step is to
> hand the patch over to other people to read, which means asking them
> to spend their time on it. I have the following options:
> 
> 1. Report the bug without submitting a patch.
> 2. Report the bug and spend a month writing the patch myself, learning
> Git internals and C along the way. Unfortunately, I'm not planning a
> career in C. I've been programming for well over a decade in a
> completely different stack, and I simply can't afford to devote that
> much time to it. It might be worthwhile if I intended to spend the
> next several years working with Git and C, but unfortunately, that's
> not an option for me. On top of that, I can't shake the feeling that
> AI is already learning faster than I am.
> 3. Report the bug and solve the problem as well as I can with the help
> of an AI agent.
> 
> So realistically, my choice comes down to options 1 and 3. And that's
> my moral dilemma: I don't know whether it's better not to submit a
> patch at all, or to do the best I can with the time I have, using AI.

It's better not to submit a patch at all if you can't submit something of reasonably good quality or can't satisfy the guidelines in SubmittingPatches (either with regard to AI usage or in any other way). I've been contributing for probably a decade and there are lots of times I submit a bug report or notice a problem and _don't_ submit a patch, either because I'm limited in time or because it's something that I'm just not familiar with (like the internals of the pack bitmap code). Reporting bugs is valuable to us even without a patch and nobody is expected to magically understand all the code.

The problem you reported has been noticed by other people, so it may be that someone who _is_ familiar with the code or confidence in C picks it up. That happened with a change that went into 2.56 about an issue I reported around the 2.51 time frame. I agree this is something that should ideally be fixed and a fix would be valuable for another problem that I've also reported (`git remote rename` is very expensive with many remote-tracking refs), so it's likely someone will pick it up eventually and that could end up being me if nobody else gets to it first (no promises, though).

-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Previous: Patrick SteinhardtNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 31 of 35 in “[BUG] reference-transaction hook misses destination of git branch -m”
  1. Maciej CiemborowiczSep 19, 2026
  2. Karthik NayakSep 19, 2026
  3. refs: run copy and rename through transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Sep 20, 2026
  4. Junio C HamanoSep 21, 2026
  5. Junio C HamanoSep 21, 2026
  6. Maciej CiemborowiczSep 22, 2026
  7. refs: run copy and rename through transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Sep 23, 2026
  8. Maciej CiemborowiczSep 30, 2026
  9. Patrick SteinhardtOct 2, 2026
  10. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 2, 2026
  11. Patrick SteinhardtOct 5, 2026
  12. 0/4 refs: run copy and rename through transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 7, 2026
  13. 1/4 refs: distinguish internal transactions from logical updatesMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 7, 2026
  14. 2/4 refs: support replacing reflogs in a transactionMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 7, 2026
  15. 3/4 refs: run copy and rename through ordinary transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 7, 2026
  16. 4/4 refs: remove backend-specific copy and rename callbacksMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 7, 2026
  17. Junio C HamanoOct 7, 2026
  18. 0/4 refs: run copy and rename through transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 8, 2026
  19. 1/4 refs: distinguish internal transactions from logical updatesMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 8, 2026
  20. 2/4 refs: support replacing reflogs in a transactionMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 8, 2026
  21. 3/4 refs: run copy and rename through ordinary transactionsMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 8, 2026
  22. 4/4 refs: remove backend-specific copy and rename callbacksMaciej Ciemborowicz, Oct 8, 2026
  23. Patrick SteinhardtOct 8, 2026
  24. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 8, 2026
  25. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 8, 2026
  26. Junio C HamanoOct 8, 2026
  27. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 8, 2026
  28. Kristoffer HaugsbakkOct 8, 2026
  29. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 8, 2026
  30. Patrick SteinhardtOct 9, 2026
  31. brian m. carlsonOct 10, 2026
  32. Junio C HamanoOct 8, 2026
  33. Karthik NayakOct 9, 2026
  34. Maciej CiemborowiczOct 10, 2026
  35. Maciej CiemborowiczSep 23, 2026

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.