On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:50:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 06/06/07, Yann Dirson <ydirson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >I am however not happy at all with the way we delete patches and > >series, starting with an existence check and then deleting. If any > >error occurs midway, then we are left with an inconsistent state that > >the user has to cleanup by hand. IMHO, we should have those methods > >be as robust as possible, maybe starting by removing the formatversion > >item, and printing a "cleaning up zombie stack" if does not find it. > >So at least after fixing a "delete" bug, we could rerun the same > >command and get to a sane state again. > > This sounds OK for a quick fix. Longer term, I think we should support > some kind of transactions. One idea is to put the StGIT metadata in a > single file (or maybe two if we include the config) that gets checked > in after every operation. Speaking of transactions, did you have a chance to read the proposal I posted some time ago ? As stated in another mail, I fear that approach does generalize easily to core git - but for lack of a better solution, we may want to go this way anyway... Best regards, -- Yann - 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
