Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:22:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >>> * kn/reflog-migration-fix (2025-01-15) 1 commit >> >>> (merged to 'next' on 2025-01-16 at ae8f9ce9a0) >> >>> + reftable: write correct max_update_index to header >> >>> (this branch is used by kn/reflog-migration-fix-followup.) >> >>> ... >> >> This seems to be breaking on 'next'. >> > ... >> > reproduces the issue. I haven't found the root cause yet, but will >> > mostly call it a day and get back to this tomorrow. >> >> We have a handful of topics related to refs subsystem in flight, >> and I am a bit lost here. >> >> (1) kn/reflog-migration-fix (the above) was done as a "fix" for the >> issue reported by brian in >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z4UbkcmJAU1MT-Rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> (2) You mention that (1) is broken in the message I am responding >> to. There is no known fix yet, so (1) needs to wait in 'next' >> until it gets fixed. >> >> (3) kn/reflog-migration-fix-followup is a code clean-up for (1); it >> has to wait for (2) as well. >> >> (4) kn/reflog-symref-fix is a fix for a different bug the commit >> that introduced the bug (1) addresses. It can proceed >> independently from the other topics. >> >> (5) ps/reflog-migration-with-logall-fix is another fix for a >> different bug introduced by the same series whose bugs are >> addressed by (1) and (4). It can proceed independently from the >> other topics. >> >> The above is my current understanding; did I miss any other relevant >> topics that are related to these efforts, and/or did I misunderstand >> the dependencies among them? >> >> If I am not misunderstanding the current status of these topics, >> I'll be marking (4) and (5) for 'next'; I am undecided for (3). > > Karthik has meanwhile sent a v2 [1] of the broken patch in (1) that > fixes the issue discovered in (2). Given that (1) has already been in > next, (2) probably needs to be rerolled to be a patch on top of what we > already have in next. > > Other than that yes, I think (4) and (5) can be merged independently of > (1) to (3). > > Patrick > > [1]: <20250123135613.748916-1-karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> This seems right, just providing another set of eyes here. Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
