Re: [PATCH] setup: tweak upgrade policy to grandfather worktreeconfig

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> It's too late to go that far for 2.28.  It would be tempting to try a
> simple revert of 14c7fa269e4 (check_repository_format_gently(): refuse
> extensions for old repositories, 2020-06-05) to get back to tried and
> true behavior but that does not do enough --- it still produces an
> error when trying to upgrade repository format when any extensions are
> set.  So how about such a revert plus Junio's patch plus the analogous
> change to Junio's patch for
>
>   extensions.preciousObjects
>   extensions.partialClone

My illustration patch was done "assuming that worktreeconfig is the
only thing we wrote by mistake without updating the format version",
and if these two also share the same problem, I obviously is 100%
fine with covering these other ones with the same approach.

I like your "v0 and v1 are the same, but the repository is declared
to be corrupt if the extentions that are not known by today's code
is found in v0 repository", by the way.  Assuming that the two you
listed above plus worktreeconfig are the only ones known by today's
code, that is.  We seem to also know about "noop", so shouldn't it
also be grandfathered in?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux