threads / patch / 37409

patch, 5 partsRe: [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR

## tl;dr

2 messages between Aug 24, 2014 and Aug 25, 2014. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Gábor Szeder· Aug 24, 2014, 13:22 UTC · lore
Hi,
On Aug 23, 2014 12:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash 
> state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a 
> stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external 
> programs should never do this, because they would miss 
> packed-refs.
Not sure whether the prompt script is external program or not, but doesn't matter, this is the right thing to do.
Show 10 quoted lines
> That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack 
> refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the 
> ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix 
> that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here. 
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 
> --- 
> I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all, 
> that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of 
> this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe.
I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly (don't have the means to check it at the moment, sorry) in that commit I also added a 'git pack-ref' invocation to the relevant test(s?) to guard us against breakages due to changes in 'git pack-refs'.  If that is so, then I think those invocations should be removed as well, as they'll become useless.

Best, Gábor

Jeff King· Aug 25, 2014, 12:46 UTC · re: Gábor Szeder · lore
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:22:41PM +0700, Gábor Szeder wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Aug 23, 2014 12:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > Since dd0b72c (bash prompt: use bash builtins to check stash 
> > state, 2011-04-01), git-prompt checks whether we have a 
> > stash by looking for $GIT_DIR/refs/stash. Generally external 
> > programs should never do this, because they would miss 
> > packed-refs.
> 
> Not sure whether the prompt script is external program or not, but
> doesn't matter, this is the right thing to do.

Yeah, by external I just meant "nothing outside of refs.c should make this assumption".

Show 17 quoted lines
> > That commit claims that packed-refs does not pack 
> > refs/stash, but that is not quite true. It does pack the 
> > ref, but due to a bug, fails to prune the ref. When we fix 
> > that bug, we would want to be doing the right thing here. 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 
> > --- 
> > I know we are pretty sensitive to forks in the prompt code (after all, 
> > that was the point of dd0b72c). This patch is essentially a reversion of 
> > this hunk of dd0b72c, and is definitely safe.
> 
> I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly (don't have the means to
> check it at the moment, sorry) in that commit I also added a 'git
> pack-ref' invocation to the relevant test(s?) to guard us against
> breakages due to changes in 'git pack-refs'.  If that is so, then I
> think those invocations should be removed as well, as they'll become
> useless.

It did add that change (that's actually how I noticed the problem! Thank you for being thorough in dd0b72c). My inclination is to leave the pack-refs invocations, as they protect against a certain class of errors (we are not doing the risky behavior now, but the purpose of the test suite is to detect regressions; the next person to touch that code may not be so careful as you were).

I don't feel too strongly, though, so if we want them gone, I'm OK with that.

-Peff

← back to recent threads