Re: [PATCHv1 0/6] Fix bug in large transactions

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> v2 applies to sb/atomic-push instead of next and will result in a one
>> line merge conflict with next.
>
> I acctually tried to apply on 'next' and also on 'sb/atomic-push'
> and both failed.

That's strange indeed. I just checked out origin/sb/atomic-push (which
points at 04b39f195baf, 2015-01-12 16:24:02, Document receive.advertiseatomic)
and applied the patches v2 from my outgoing mailbox without problems.

I do not remember to have changed my development process a lot there.
(I was not using notes, but that should not matter at all)
git format-patch --subject-prefix=PATCHv2 --cover-letter
origin/sb/atomic-push..HEAD
$EDITOR 0000-cover-letter.patch
git send-email 00* --to=...

>I had to wiggle the patches to make them apply on
> the latter, and that is what is queued on 'pu' now, but I would not
> be surprised if I made silly mistakes while doing so, so please
> double check the result and catch them if I did.

I just fetched origin/sb/atomic-push-fix and the only difference I can spot
compared to the local branch is in d4ad3f1cdcb (refs.c: remove lock_fd
from struct ref_lock) in refs.c in the hunk:

@@ -2335,8 +2333,8 @@ static struct ref_lock
*lock_ref_sha1_basic(const char *refname,
  goto error_return;
  }

- lock->lock_fd = hold_lock_file_for_update(lock->lk, ref_file, lflags);
- if (lock->lock_fd < 0) {
+ if (hold_lock_file_for_update(lock->lk, ref_file, lflags) < 0) {
+ last_errno = errno;
  if (errno == ENOENT && --attempts_remaining > 0)
  /*
  * Maybe somebody just deleted one of the

(whitespaces broken here)
That hunk has the additional line "+ last_errno = errno;", which I do
not have locally, but that's the exact problem I spotted when trying to
merge my local branch to origin/next which then results in a merge
conflict with the patch from origin/jk/lock-ref-sha1-basic-return-errors
as that introduces the line "+ last_errno = errno;".

Sorry for the confusion,
Stefan