Re: [PATCH] fetch --prune: exit with error if pruning fails
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jan 28, 2022, 12:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2201281333410.347@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <87lez0p1db.fsf@coati.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> +test_expect_success REFFILES 'fetch --prune fails to delete branches' ' > >> + cd "$D" && > >> + git clone . prune-fail && > >> + cd prune-fail && > >> + git update-ref refs/remotes/origin/extrabranch main && > >> + >.git/packed-refs.new && > >> + test_must_fail git fetch --prune origin > > > > Is it because the lockfile ".new" on packed-refs prevents deletion > > of refs but does not block creation and updates to existing refs > > that it is an effective test for the "--prune" issue? If we somehow > > "locked" the whole ref updates, then the fetch would fail even > > without "--prune", so it may be "effective", but smells like knowing > > too much implementation detail. Yuck, but I do not offhand think of > > any better way (it is easier to think of worse ways), so without > > further input, I would say that this is the best (or "least bad") we > > can do. > > Yes, that's correct. New refs will be created as loose refs, so they > don't care about packed-refs. However deletions can potentially be > happening in packed-refs, and that's why it fails when 'packed-refs.new' > exists. > > I don't love the test either, but I also can't think of a better way to > do this.
Maybe add a code comment about it? Something like:
[...] : this will prevent --prune from locking packed-refs && >.git/packed-refs.new && [...]
Ciao, Dscho