Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] t5520: ensure origin refs are updated

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

 



Hi Junio,

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is not unusual when the change is trivially correct.
>
> I do not think this hurts, but I do not think that this is vastly
> better, either.  If you suspect that the previous one may fail but
> you at the same time are so trusting that the one before that one
> would succeed, yes, this will help in that case.  But if you suspect
> the previous one may fail, the one before that may have also failed,
> in which case this may not be sufficient (the result of fetching may
> not match what this test expects to see).
>
> It all depends on where our paranoia ends. The current code is very
> much trusting all previous ones equally, and accepts "upon the first
> error, all bets are off for the later ones". With this patch, it
> becomes slightly less trusting.
>
> If everything else were equal, I would say this change is a "Meh" to
> me,

Yeah, thinking about it, it's a "meh" to me too. While this patch will
improve consistency in the attempt to recover from failure, I don't
think it will be useful in practice, and it's also not relevant to the
goal of this series.

Will drop this patch.

> but I think the change improves this test in a different way.
>
> It begins with "Run 'git rebase --abort', just in case"; which is a
> signal that it does consider that the previous one may have failed
> and attempts to prepare for that possibility, while trusting the one
> before that would have succeeded.  And under that assumption, what
> it currently does is _not_ consistent; the previous "pull --rebase"
> may have failed in the "rebase" phase, in which case "abort just in
> case" is a good measure to go back to the clean state, but it may
> have failed in the "fetch" phase, in which case "abort" does not
> help.  And this patch is needed to fix that inconsistency.
>
> If justified in that way in the log message, then I wouldn't have
> said "I do not think that this is vastly better", I think.
>

Thanks,
Paul
--
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]