On 08/23/2014 07:23 AM, Jeff King wrote: > I noticed that "git pack-refs --all" will pack a top-level ref like > "refs/foo", but will not actually prune "$GIT_DIR/refs/foo". I do not > see the point in having a policy not to pack "refs/foo" if "--all" is > given. But even if we did have such a policy, this seems broken; we > should either pack and prune, or leave them untouched. I don't see any > indication that the existing behavior was intentional. > > The problem is that pack-refs's prune_ref calls lock_ref_sha1, which > enforces this "no toplevel" behavior. I am not sure there is any real > point to this, given that most callers use lock_any_ref_for_update, > which is exactly equivalent but without the toplevel check. > > The first two patches deal with this by switching pack-refs to use > lock_any_ref_for_update. This will conflict slightly with Ronnie's > ref-transaction work, as he gets rid of lock_ref_sha1 entirely, and > moves the code directly into prune_ref. This can be trivially resolved > in favor of my patch, I think. > > The third patch is a cleanup I noticed while looking around, and I think > should not conflict with anyone (and is a good thing to do). > > The last two are trickier. I wondered if we could get rid of > lock_ref_sha1 entirely. After pack-refs, there are two callers: > fast-import.c and walker.c. After converting the first, it occurred to > me that Ronnie might be touching the same areas, and I see that yes, > indeed, there's quite a bit of conflict (and he reaches the same end > goal of dropping it entirely). > > So in that sense I do not mind dropping the final two patches. Ronnie's > endpoint is much better, moving to a ref_transaction. However, there is > actually a buffer overflow in the existing code. Ronnie's series fixes > it in a similar way (moving to a strbuf), and I'm fine with that > endpoint. But given that the ref transaction code is not yet merged (and > would certainly never be maint-track), I think it is worth applying the > buffer overflow fix separately. > > I think the final patch can probably be dropped, then. It is a clean-up, > but one that we can just get when Ronnie's series is merged. > > [1/5]: git-prompt: do not look for refs/stash in $GIT_DIR > [2/5]: pack-refs: prune top-level refs like "refs/foo" > [3/5]: fast-import: clean up pack_data pointer in end_packfile > [4/5]: fast-import: fix buffer overflow in dump_tags > [5/5]: fast-import: stop using lock_ref_sha1 +1 on patches 1 and 2 Patch 3 is outside of my area of competence +1 on patch 4, which looks trivially correct. +1 on patch 5, though I agree with peff that it can be omitted in deference to Ronnie's work. By the way, while cleaning up in patch 5 you might take the chance to rename the local variable ref_name to refname to be consistent with most of our code, but this is by no means required. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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