Re: [PATCH 00/24] Yet another pre-refs-backend series

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

 



On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think this risk is acceptable nevertheless, because expiring reflogs
> is an uncommon operation and unlikely to be done from two processes at
> the same time; moreover, the integrity of reflogs is not a matter of
> life or death.
> ...
> If somebody is really upset about the risk of a race between an old and
> new version of `git reflog expire`, the way to increase the safety would
> be to lock *both* the symref and the referent while changing the
> symref's reflog. I think that would be overkill.

Thanks, I agree with all of the above.

> This whole series is
>
> Reviewed-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Will squeeze it into all of them, then, and merge to 'next'.

Thanks.
--
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]