On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 04:46:20PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: John Cai <johncai86@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > These tests are compatible with the reftable backend and thus do not > > need the REFFILES prerequisite. > > May want to give a bit more backstory here? After all, 53af25e4 > (t1405: mark test that checks existence as REFFILES, 2022-01-31) and > 53af25e4 (t1405: mark test that checks existence as REFFILES, > 2022-01-31) marked these tests to require REFFILES and they explain > the reason for doing so was exactly because the reftable backend did > not have the notion of "the reflog for this ref exists" that is > independent from "the reflog for this ref exists and has one or more > reflog records". If your work on the reftable backend during the > past few years added support for "already exists, but there is no > entry yet" state for reflogs, that would be great, but it would make > sense to explain why they suddenly have become "compatible with the > reftable backend". I don't know a lot about the history any why we initially didn't think it would be compatible, mostly because there is no history of how the reftable backend itself evolved over time. I can only say that when I took over the effort that this indeed worked as expected by writing "existence" markers into the reflog, where this existence marker is a simple entry where both old and new object ID are set to the null OID. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
