Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:42:51 -0500 > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But this all seemed strangely familiar... I think this is the same bug >> as: >> >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180118143841.1a4c674d@novascotia/ >> >> which is queued as mr/packed-ref-store-fix. It's listed as "will merge >> to next" in the "what's cooking" from Jan 31st. > > Ah...thanks, I didn't notice that. > >> I actually like this double-label a bit more than what is queued on >> mr/packed-ref-store-fix, though I am OK with either solution. > > Same here. I do agree that the double-label approach is more future-proof way, especially if we anticipate that there will be more code after the "attempt initial ref transaction commit" block before the packed-ref-store is unlocked. On the other hand, introduction of the locked_cleanup label can be done as part of such a change that adds new code that needs to be skipped, so I am OK with what is queued there. Thanks, all.
