From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:21:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ref_transaction_commit(): only keep one lockfile open at a time
Message-ID: <xmqqoamcypy4.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqiock1yq3.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> I am not too worried about "push --atomic", as we can just add a few
> words to Release Notes and documentation saying "this is still an
> experimental broken code that is unusable; don't use the feature in
> production".
>
> I however am more worried about the other one "update-ref --stdin";
> the change will be pure regression for those who want to do many
> updates and do not care if the update is atomic, no?

I should have refrained from touching the keyboard so late at night
X-<.  This regression was done long time ago (even in v2.1.0 I see
that ref_transaction_commit() tries to grab all locks at once).

So it is only "push --atomic".

The choice is between (1) shipping "push --atomic" that is known to
be broken, (2) applying your five-patch series which may (a) fix
both "push --atomic" and "update-ref --stdin", or (b) break other
transaction users including "update-ref -stdin" in unexpected ways.

I dunno.  I am still tempted to go route (2) hoping that it would
result in (2-a) not (2-b).