Re: [PATCH v4 00/28] Support reftable ref backend for Git

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2021, 08:39 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfsuwha5p.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <cover-v4-00.28-00000000000-20210823T120208Z-avarab@gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> This is a version of the reftable series queued on top of my
> just-re-rolled fixes to the refs APIs, which it can make use of. For
> the base topics see:
>
>     https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v5-00.13-00000000000-20210823T113115Z-avarab@gmail.com/
>     https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v10-0.8-00000000000-20210823T114712Z-avarab@gmail.com/
>
> For Han-Wen's v3 of this see:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1054.v3.git.git.1629207607.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
>
> I've got no desire to take over the reftable topic in its entirety,
> but think given the rationale in
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/877dgch4rn.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
> (summarized in
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/87y28sfokk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/) that
> having the refs API fixes I noted above wait on the still-unstable
> reftable doesn't make sense.

Of course, you and Han-Wen are in much better position to judge the relative merit to decide which one should go first than I am, but I had an impression that the errno thing was even less stable, with API churn that deliberately broke the other topic in flight, which appeared to be just irresponsible.

Show 9 quoted lines

> I'll let Han-Wen deal with that squashing in a presumed future v5 of
> this, assuming of course that Junio's happy with the plan of basing
> hn/reftable on the refs API fixes above.
>
> I'm not sure that the fix I have in 27/28 is the right one, perhaps
> we've already got information about what the tip OID of the refname is
> at that point in git_reftable_reflog_expire() via some API I missed,
> but that fix works, and is clearly more correct than the outstanding
> segfault.