Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> diff --git a/refs.c b/refs.c >> index 917f8fc..39e43cf 100644 >> --- a/refs.c >> +++ b/refs.c >> @@ -2326,7 +2326,7 @@ static struct ref_lock *lock_ref_sha1_basic(const char *refname, >> */ >> goto retry; >> else >> - unable_to_lock_die(ref_file, errno); >> + unable_to_lock_die(ref_file, lflags, errno); >> } > > This has unfortunate interaction with 06839515 (lock_ref_sha1_basic: > do not die on locking errors, 2014-11-19). The fact that the helper > unable-to-lock-message() is now hidden inside lockfile.c does not > help, either. I tried to merge the 14-patch series with obvious fix-ups after dropping the rerere abortion change you sent separately and in duplicate and also dropping sb/copy-fd, but I've ran out of patience with this step, at least for today's integration cycle. Should we also drop jk/lock-ref-sha1-basec-return-errors topic as well? The 14-patch series may have been internally consistent and its individual patches, when each of them was taken alone by itself, may have made sense, but it appears that the aggregated whole these separate topics took their root from is inconsistent with itself in minor ways like this here and there X-<. -- 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