Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ void prune_shallow(unsigned options)
>> > } else {
>> > unlink(git_path_shallow(the_repository));
>> > rollback_lock_file(&shallow_lock);
>> > + reset_repository_shallow(the_repository);
>> > }
>>
>> Here, we reset only after we realize we cannot write the updated
>> shallow file. Intended?
>
> Yes, see this earlier discussion I had about it with Jonathan:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200416020509.225014-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/.
I did, and then I asked the question, because I couldn't quite get
if JTan was asking a question similar to the one he asked earlier in
the message ("do you need a reset in the "else" branch as well?"),
or if he was saying what he sees there, "the opposite case", was
good.
Also, I was sort-of reacting to """In any case, I think the commit
message should discuss why reset_repository_shallow() is added only
on the unlink+rollback side in one "if" statement, but only on the
opposite "commit" side in another "if" statement.""" in that
message.
Thanks.
