Re: [PATCH v8 41/44] refs.c: add a new flag for transaction delete for refs we know are packed only

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:

>> I hate rename_ref :-)
>>
>> I have reworked the transaction code to special case the deletion of
>> the old ref for n/n -> n  and n -> n/n renames
>> so that we can carefully avoid n/n.lock files to exist or prevent the
>> directory <-> file transition for n during these renames.
[...]
> 	Unlink the corresponding loose refs so packed-refs
> 		becomes authoritative for them.
> 	Lock packed-refs.
> 	Perform updates and removals in the packed-refs cache.
> 	Commit packed-refs.

... or is the problem that the reflogs conflict?

How does rename_ref handle propagating the reflog from the old
name to the new name, by the way?

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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]