From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13546C432BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:39:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E214A6103A for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240492AbhHZIki (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:40:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:63912 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229652AbhHZIki (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:40:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D889A147641; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:39:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=mVu5SD9LSl+cULF4PA3rTEqZe UcL1nWxiksy7Fkc3ZA=; b=q2JcL7l1bHRAaah5NtNVHkcjD5ZSJxwmLa+7tKYuc fSrOSsjcZt7e7KONRekjlJ/NcttRREI0VYmzmyAnQz6pD6/DWGGq0ivOlUpHbEYB GjszM3uBaHQKOTidqJb2ZX4DSP05Tp6ZdILY2P4X7NetQjwJVJb0r2HWC+xA4OOC XE= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD48F14763F; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:39:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.116.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1744614763E; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 04:39:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/28] Support reftable ref backend for Git References: Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 01:39:46 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2BEF4BCA-0649-11EC-B165-FA11AF6C5138-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > 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-v5-00.13-00000000000-20210823T113= 115Z-avarab@gmail.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v10-0.8-00000000000-20210823T1147= 12Z-avarab@gmail.com/ > > For Han-Wen's v3 of this see: > https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1054.v3.git.git.1629207607.gitgitgadge= t@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. > 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.