Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > I am not too worried about "push --atomic", as we can just add a few > words to Release Notes and documentation saying "this is still an > experimental broken code that is unusable; don't use the feature in > production". > > I however am more worried about the other one "update-ref --stdin"; > the change will be pure regression for those who want to do many > updates and do not care if the update is atomic, no?
I should have refrained from touching the keyboard so late at night X-<. This regression was done long time ago (even in v2.1.0 I see that ref_transaction_commit() tries to grab all locks at once). So it is only "push --atomic". The choice is between (1) shipping "push --atomic" that is known to be broken, (2) applying your five-patch series which may (a) fix both "push --atomic" and "update-ref --stdin", or (b) break other transaction users including "update-ref -stdin" in unexpected ways. I dunno. I am still tempted to go route (2) hoping that it would result in (2-a) not (2-b). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
