Re: [PATCH 00/18] Improve handling of D/F conflicts
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 3, 2015, 02:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqy4l6wgwm.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1430483158-14349-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> We currently don't handle D/F conflicts very well. > > A "D/F conflict" is what we call a conflict between references like > "refs/foo" and "refs/foo/bar".
Could you phrase that slightly differently, so that readers can tell between the usual D/F conflict that is between directory and file in the tracked contents (i.e. conflict between the branches being merged, killing of a directory necessary when checking out a file, etc.) and this thing? They are similar in nature, but "D/F conflict" has been used to refer to the clashes that happen to the user contents, not refnames. Starting a paragraph with "... don't handle D/F conflicts in refnames very well" and then using "D/F conflict" as a short-hand for "D/F conflict in refnames" throughout the rest of the message is perfectly fine, as long as the message never talks about the D/F conflict in the traditional sense.
Show 5 quoted lines
> * D/F conflicts between references being created in a single > transaction used to be detected too late, possibly after part of the > transaction had already been committed. > > * D/F errors against loose references were typically reported as
Be consistent by s/errors/conflicts/ perhaps?
Show 7 quoted lines
> This patch series applies on top of > mh/ref-lock-avoid-running-out-of-fds. I did it that way because I > expected significant conflicts between the series, and the older > series is simple/mature enough that I expect it to be merged early in > the post-2.4 cycle. But in retrospect it turns out that there are only > minor conflicts between the two series. So if you would like me to > rebase this series to another starting point, please let me know.
Thanks for being considerate about back-porting necessity.
As I have written, I actually would prefer to see that the other topic, ref-lock-avoid-running-out-of-fds, to be made applicable to older maintenance tracks. So...