On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The "shouldn't affect" is potentially a problem.If the current
>> 'worktree add' process caches something (in ref handling, for example)
>> that the 'git branch' process changes, then we may need to invalidate
>> cache in 'worktree add' process after run_command(). I guess it's ok
>> in this case since all we do is run_command(), we do not lookup refs
>> or anything else afterwards.
>
> With this patch series applied, the code effectively does this:
>
> branch = ...
> if (create_new_branch) {
> exec "git branch newbranch branch"
> branch = newbranch;
> }
> if (ref_exists(branch) && !detach)
> exec "git symbolic-ref HEAD branch"
> else
> exec "git update-ref HEAD $(git rev-parse branch)"
> exec "git reset --hard"
>
> So, if I understand your concern correctly, then you are worried that,
> following the git-branch invocation, ref_exists() could return the
> wrong answer with a pluggable ref-backend since it might be answering
> based upon stale information. Is that what you mean? If so, I can see
> how that it could be an issue. (As far as I can tell, the current
> file-based backend doesn't have a problem with this since it's hitting
> the filesystem directly to answer the ref_exists() question.)
I meant for this final sentence to end like this:
...to answer the ref_exists() question, but it still seems
fragile since some future change could introduce caching.
--
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