On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> Is your plan to reroll the prune-mtime stuff on top of these? The > >> additional safety those patches would give us is valuable and they > >> are pretty straight-forward---I was hoping to have them in the 2.2 > >> release. > > > > Yes, I've delayed while thinking about the issues that Michael raised. > > There are basically two paths I see: > > > > 1. These do not solve all problems/races, but are a solid base and > > sensible path forward for further changes which we can worry about > > later. > > > > 2. There is a better way to provide prune safety, and these patches > > will get in the way of doing that. > > > > I wanted to make sure we are on path (1) and not path (2). :) > > FWIW I think we are on path (1). Good. :) I was preparing this to re-send, but I realized there is one snag. I mentioned that we should probably be ignoring already-broken links from recent objects to missing objects. For the traversal in pack-objects, we can use revs->ignore_missing_links for this. But for the one in git-prune itself, we use mark_reachable, which does not respect that option. I think mark_reachable's traversal is essentially the same as the one in list-objects.c, and the two can be merged. I'll look into that, but I ran out of time for it tonight (er, this morning. Oops). -Peff -- 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