Hi Gábor & Thomas,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:18:37PM +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> > Thanks. I still didn't manage to reproduce it locally, but I was now
> > able to test it on Travis CI.
> >
> > The diff below fixes the issue, but I still need to spend some time to
> > better understand why it does.
>
> There is nothing like a fix that works, but you have no idea why :)
I know why. Now. See below for the analysis.
> FWIW, I'm at a couple of thousands of '--stress' repetitions with your
> patch below, and not a single failure yet.
Good, and yes, there is a problem.
> > I'll hopefully be in a position to
> > send a patch with a proper log message why this is the right fix in
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/stash--helper.c b/builtin/stash--helper.c
> > index c77f62c895..3dab488bd6 100644
> > --- a/builtin/stash--helper.c
> > +++ b/builtin/stash--helper.c
> > @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@ static int reset_tree(struct object_id *i_tree, int update, int reset)
> > struct tree *tree;
> > struct lock_file lock_file = LOCK_INIT;
> >
> > + discard_cache();
> > read_cache_preload(NULL);
> > if (refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET))
> > return -1;
> >
So this is working, but it is not the correct spot for that
`discard_cache()`, as it forces unnecessary cycles on code paths calling
`reset_tree()` (which corresponds to `git read-tree`, admittedly a bit
confusing) with a fully up to date index.
The real fix, I believe, is this:
-- snip --
diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
index 2d6dfce883..516dee0fa4 100644
--- a/builtin/stash.c
+++ b/builtin/stash.c
@@ -1372,6 +1372,7 @@ static int do_push_stash(struct pathspec ps, const char *stash_msg, int quiet,
}
} else {
struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
+ discard_cache();
cp.git_cmd = 1;
argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "reset", "--hard", "-q",
NULL);
-- snap --
And the reason this is needed: we spawn a `git reset --hard` here, which
will change the index, but outside of the current process. So the
in-process copy is stale. And when the index' mtime does not help us
detect that, we run into that test breakage.
Now, I seriously believe that we missed the best time to move
ps/stash-in-c into `next` for cooking. The best time would have been just
after Paul submitted the latest patch series: we know for a fact that he
is too busy to really take care of this patch series, so keeping it in
`pu` puts everybody into that awkward spot where nobody wants to step on
Paul's toes messing with his patch series, but where Paul also lacks the
time to push it further, so everything is stuck in a limbo and is *so very
much* not cooking at all. You might say that it has turned bad because we
failed to stoke the fire appropriately.
Since it is now way too late in the v2.21.0 process, this problem is only
exacerbated, because it won't even enter `next` "better late than never".
To address this unfortunate situation, my current plan is to take over
from Paul (we had been chatting about this privately in the past, and he
is okay with this because of University eating all his time).
I will open the whole bag again, most likely squashing the late fixups
into the patches that introduced the problems, re-review with a much finer
comb than the patch series has enjoyed on the Git mailing list (even just
a quick look at `do_apply_stash()` revealed an unnecessary `reset_tree()`
call that *no* reviewer spotted, even I myself, but then, I am hardly
solely responsible for that review), and most likely I'll even take my
sweet little time changing the code to avoid more spawned Git processes.
It will take a long time, and the `stash` project that has been discussed
recently to be given to GSoC students is no longer available, as I will
take care of it before GSoC even starts, and I won't spend much time
reviewing other people's code in the meantime.
I will start that only after v2.21.0 final is out, obviously.
Once I submit a new iteration, it will look quite a bit different from
before, and reviewers will have to re-review *everything*, wasting
everybody's time even more. It will have to be re-reviewed in its entirety
anyway because it has been *such* a long time since the latest review, and
that's just the price we all have to pay for missing the right moment to
advance this to `next`. Thomas, I will ask you to review, and Gábor, I
will expect you to review that iteration, too, as you are now a bit
familiar with the code, and I will really need your help here.
Anyway, that's my plan for now.
Ciao,
Dscho
