Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The locking was added intentionally, to ensure that the reflog for > `HEAD` is written safely. But the code didn't do that prior to the > commit that you referenced, so (as a special case) ignoring failures to > lock `HEAD` due to insufficient permission is probably a reasonable > compromise. > > I think the special case could be restricted even further to when `HEAD` > has the `REF_LOG_ONLY` flag in the reference transaction. I don't think > that `HEAD` would ever show up in a transaction solely to verify its old > value in a typical server scenario, but if so, that situation could be > special cased too. I find both of these acceptably good changes.