On 12/20/2016 01:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with
> '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with
> '+' are in 'next'. The ones marked with '.' do not appear in any of
> the integration branches, but I am still holding onto them.
>
> The second (rather large) batch of topics have been merged to
> 'master'. Please test and catch possible regressions early.
>
> You can find the changes described here in the integration branches
> of the repositories listed at
>
> http://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> [Graduated to "master"]
>
> [...]
> * jc/lock-report-on-error (2016-12-07) 3 commits
> (merged to 'next' on 2016-12-13 at cb6c07ee92)
> + lockfile: LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR
> + hold_locked_index(): align error handling with hold_lockfile_for_update()
> + wt-status: implement opportunisitc index update correctly
>
> Git 2.11 had a minor regression in "merge --ff-only" that competed
> with another process that simultanously attempted to update the
> index. We used to explain what went wrong with an error message,
> but the new code silently failed. The error message has been
> resurrected.
Sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but the `LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR`
constant introduced by
3f061bf "lockfile: LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR", 2016-12-07
sets that constant to the value 2, which is the same value set for the
existing constant `LOCK_NO_DEREF`. Both constants define bits that can
be set in the `flags` argument of `hold_lock_file_for_update()`, so one
of these values needs to be changed.
Michael
