Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
> --- a/fast-import.c
> +++ b/fast-import.c
> @@ -1679,39 +1679,45 @@ found_entry:
> static int update_branch(struct branch *b)
> {
> static const char *msg = "fast-import";
> - struct ref_lock *lock;
> + struct ref_transaction *transaction;
> unsigned char old_sha1[20];
> + struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> if (read_ref(b->name, old_sha1))
> hashclr(old_sha1);
> +
> if (is_null_sha1(b->sha1)) {
> if (b->delete)
> delete_ref(b->name, old_sha1, 0);
> return 0;
> }
> - lock = lock_any_ref_for_update(b->name, old_sha1, 0, NULL);
> - if (!lock)
> - return error("Unable to lock %s", b->name);
> if (!force_update && !is_null_sha1(old_sha1)) {
> struct commit *old_cmit, *new_cmit;
>
> old_cmit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(old_sha1, 0);
> new_cmit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(b->sha1, 0);
> if (!old_cmit || !new_cmit) {
> - unlock_ref(lock);
> return error("Branch %s is missing commits.", b->name);
> }
(style) Now that there's only one line in the "if" body, we can
drop the braces.
>
> if (!in_merge_bases(old_cmit, new_cmit)) {
> - unlock_ref(lock);
> warning("Not updating %s"
> " (new tip %s does not contain %s)",
> b->name, sha1_to_hex(b->sha1), sha1_to_hex(old_sha1));
> return -1;
(not about this patch, feel free to ignore) This could
return warning("...")
> }
> - if (write_ref_sha1(lock, b->sha1, msg) < 0)
> - return error("Unable to update %s", b->name);
> + transaction = ref_transaction_begin();
> + if ((!transaction ||
> + ref_transaction_update(transaction, b->name, b->sha1, old_sha1,
> + 0, 1)) ||
Would be more idiomatic to drop a layer of parentheses:
if (!transaction ||
ref_transaction_update(...) ||
> + (ref_transaction_commit(transaction, msg, &err) &&
> + !(transaction = NULL))) {
Would be clearer if ref_transaction_commit didn't take care of the
rollback (or in other words if patch 21 were earlier in the series).
> + ref_transaction_rollback(transaction);
> + error("Unable to update branch %s: %s", b->name, err.buf);
> + strbuf_release(&err);
> + return -1;
> + }
Example old message:
error: Unable to lock refs/heads/master
New message:
error: Unable to update branch refs/heads/master: Cannot lock the ref 'refs/heads/master'.
So 'error("%s", err.buf)' would probably work better.
The only call site is dump_branches:
for (i = 0; i < branch_table_sz; i++) {
for (b = branch_table[i]; b; b = b->table_next_branch)
failure |= update_branch(b);
}
Should these happen in a single transaction? I haven't thought
through whether it would be a good idea, if it should be optional, or
what.
Anyway, that would be a bigger behavior change, but it's interesting
to think about.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html