On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > this is a resend of version 1 of this patch series to hopefully entice
> > some reviews. The only change is that v2 is rebased onto the current
> > main branch at commit e83ba647f7 (The seventh batch, 2022-01-05). The
> > following was from the orignial cover letter:
>
> I'll add Ævar, who has been making a lot of changes to the refs
> subsystem, and Han-Wen, whose work to add a new ref backend may need
> to interact with this change, as possible stake-holders to the CC list.
Thanks for the consideration, Jun. As the hook is called from refs.c,
it should not make a difference for reftable.
I looked over the patches. I didn't look at the bottom change to
packed/loose refs as I'm not an expert.
The individual transaction updates already support their own flags, so
this change generates some confusion. Consider:
int refs_delete_ref(struct ref_store *refs, const char *msg,
const char *refname,
const struct object_id *old_oid,
unsigned int flags)
how would one delete a ref skipping the transaction hook? It will be
easy for someone to pass the SKIP_TRANSACTION_HOOK to
refs_delete_ref(), with surprising results.
It might make sense to not introduce a new flag namespace, but use
update->flags instead. You'd have to add your new flag after
REF_SKIP_REFNAME_VERIFICATION.
Bonus is that you can unittest the new flag using the existing
ref-store helper without extra work. (check that a transaction with &
without the flag works as expected.)
other than that, looks OK to me.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich
I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays.
--
Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
