On 12/20/2016 01:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with > '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with > '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of > the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them. > > The second (rather large) batch of topics have been merged to > 'master'. Please test and catch possible regressions early. > > You can find the changes described here in the integration branches > of the repositories listed at > > http://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html > > -------------------------------------------------- > [Graduated to "master"] > > [...] > * jc/lock-report-on-error (2016-12-07) 3 commits > (merged to 'next' on 2016-12-13 at cb6c07ee92) > + lockfile: LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR > + hold_locked_index(): align error handling with hold_lockfile_for_update() > + wt-status: implement opportunisitc index update correctly > > Git 2.11 had a minor regression in "merge --ff-only" that competed > with another process that simultanously attempted to update the > index. We used to explain what went wrong with an error message, > but the new code silently failed. The error message has been > resurrected. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but the `LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR` constant introduced by 3f061bf "lockfile: LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR", 2016-12-07 sets that constant to the value 2, which is the same value set for the existing constant `LOCK_NO_DEREF`. Both constants define bits that can be set in the `flags` argument of `hold_lock_file_for_update()`, so one of these values needs to be changed. Michael