Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> 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);
>> }
>> strbuf_release(&sb);
>> }
>
> The "if" part (not quoted here) commits the shallow lock file, and thus
> possibly modifies (or creates) the shallow file, so I think we need to
> put reset_repository_shallow() outside the whole "if" block. I have done
> that in the patch after the scissors.
Is there any rollback_lock_file() or commit_lock_file() call on the
shallow lock file in the files involved in this patch that does not
need a call to reset_repository_shallow() left after your work?
What I am trying to get at is if it would be safer to have a pair of
thin wrapper for rolling back or committing a new version of new
shallow file, e.g. rollback_shallow_file() + commit_shallow_file(),
and replace calls to {rollback,commit}_lock_file() with calls to
them.
