Michael Haggerty writes:
> I have prepared a re-roll of the patch series, but I can't submit it
> until I have Junio's signoff on the test that he suggested [1]. Junio?
Sure, and thanks.
On 06/19/2017 09:53 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:43:15PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
Is the iterator over packed-refs correctly skipping over what are
covered by loose refs? The entries in the packed-refs file that are
superseded by loose refs should be allowed t
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:43:15PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > Is the iterator over packed-refs correctly skipping over what are
> > > covered by loose refs? The entries in the packed-refs file that are
> > > superseded by loose refs should be allowed to point at an already
> > > expired object
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:25:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > Is the iterator over packed-refs correctly skipping over what are
> > covered by loose refs? The entries in the packed-refs file that are
> > superseded by loose refs should be allowed to point at an
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Is the iterator over packed-refs correctly skipping over what are
> covered by loose refs? The entries in the packed-refs file that are
> superseded by loose refs should be allowed to point at an already
> expired object.
Here it is in a test form for easier diagnosis.
Michael Haggerty writes:
> I've developed these patches on top of master plus the following
> patches, which are followups to mh/packed-refs-store-prep:
>
> * lock_packed_refs(): fix cache validity check
> * for_each_bisect_ref(): don't trim refnames
>
> The patches can also be obtained from my G
This patch series continues the saga of picking apart the code for
handling packed references from the code for handling loose
references, all in preparation for making big changes to how the
packed-ref reading and writing works as described in [1]. As a
reminder, the final goal is to read the "pac
7 matches
Mail list logo
