SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 10:44:10AM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote: >> On 24/11/2019 04:49, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> >Hmph, that makes it sound as if the right fix is to re-read after >> >writing the first version of the todo file out, so that the stat >> >data matches reality and tells us that it has never been modified? >> >> I think we should update the stat data after we write the todo list. > > Well, yes and no. > > No, because we are dealing with regression in v2.24.0 here, so the > simpler the fix the better it is for maint. I don't think a fix can > get any simpler than my patch, with or without the suggestions from > Phillip. Of course, the simplest "fix" for regression is to revert the offending one, and anything else is a band-aid ;-). The question is which band-aid is the least risky and which one takes us the closest to the real solution. I tend to agree that forcing to skip checking no matter what the variable "check_todo" says unless is_rebase_i() qualifies as the band-aid that is the least risky. > Yes, we should definitely consider updating the stat data after the > sequencer writes the todo list, or any other options with which the > sequencer could notice a modified todo list file with less subtlety. > Alas, there is a big can of worms in that direction, see the patch > below, and we have to be very careful going that way, so I think it's > only viable in the long term, but less suitable as a regression fix > for maint. Yes, I agree that it is much less suitable than even reverting the offending one outright. > (Hrm, perhaps I spent too many words on the all zeroed out stat data, > and managed to sidetrack you a bit...) No, I do not think so. Thinking about what we need to do in the longer term, while coming up with a shorter term fix, is a necessary step of gaining confidence in the latter. Again, thanks both for thinking about this issue.
