mbox series

[v4,0/4] update-ref: allow creation of multiple transactions

Message ID cover.1605254957.git.ps@pks.im (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series update-ref: allow creation of multiple transactions | expand

Message

Patrick Steinhardt Nov. 13, 2020, 8:12 a.m. UTC
Hi,

this is the fourth version of this patch series implementing support for
creation of multiple reference transactions in a single git-update-ref
process.

All changes are only in the first patch updating t1400:

    - A stale 'rm -f' was removed.

    - The workaround around broken repos was removed as we no longer
      delete HEAD.

    - Tests have been improved to verify that deleting a symref won't
      delete their target.

Patrick


Patrick Steinhardt (4):
  t1400: avoid touching refs on filesystem
  update-ref: allow creation of multiple transactions
  p1400: use `git-update-ref --stdin` to test multiple transactions
  update-ref: disallow "start" for ongoing transactions

 Documentation/git-update-ref.txt |   3 +-
 builtin/update-ref.c             |  15 +++-
 t/perf/p1400-update-ref.sh       |  20 ++---
 t/t1400-update-ref.sh            | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 4 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

Comments

Junio C Hamano Nov. 25, 2020, 10:37 p.m. UTC | #1
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> this is the fourth version of this patch series implementing support for
> creation of multiple reference transactions in a single git-update-ref
> process.

It is my impression that the series is now in good enough shape that
we didn't see much discussion on this round.

So I'll mark this to be merged to 'next', but I ask reviewers to
please holler to stop me otherwise.

Thanks.
Jeff King Nov. 26, 2020, 12:42 a.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 02:37:54PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > this is the fourth version of this patch series implementing support for
> > creation of multiple reference transactions in a single git-update-ref
> > process.
> 
> It is my impression that the series is now in good enough shape that
> we didn't see much discussion on this round.
> 
> So I'll mark this to be merged to 'next', but I ask reviewers to
> please holler to stop me otherwise.

Yeah, this looks good to me for advancing. Thanks.

-Peff