From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EFF1F8C2 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232729AbhBJUPP (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:15:15 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:63760 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232633AbhBJUPM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:15:12 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46F3105C1F; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:14:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=8Ia/smQU/Pvr3OgP1nI0Z/rv1js=; b=iOcTJ8 jdwyUwwfPCqaYovM2pV+S0jwRpR7KkMyY0Ts7mBU1ewSQ+AgzsmqBEmZezhGGzDy fgSNbLhgzH30lCdq56PmxvvkvCH0odsRUs2WHStvuTeS6vFKKQG/SOHBHhtsNT56 fe6pvo1LkEn6OeAlG1izaQe1quDN7wANSn2rU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=xrMZWNU5AmQX7E9oYNQYS5DNSgG6r5oF rbJ+0IUh7ZtC5kwdUfmD7GVQ4HnYNEj5xXGkZgKJB7BiH7L2jQtfBIH8+AAj+YfR j0RxuNwWUIt0dVhei1UiJWOPT0A1zz4BIAtiKoOl6QT8U+wLfCbtgADS+kRaA6Rn RD7umrnOd4U= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA37105C1E; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:14:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ECAA105C1B; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 15:14:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Filippo Valsorda , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: BUG: commit-reach.c:66: bad generation skip References: <962a2abc-6352-4d19-c39f-29f3c744f861@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 12:14:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: <962a2abc-6352-4d19-c39f-29f3c744f861@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Wed, 10 Feb 2021 07:24:45 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 92AD11E2-6BDC-11EB-B0BF-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > On 2/10/2021 7:18 AM, Filippo Valsorda wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:26 AM Derrick Stolee wrote: >>> _This_ is interesting. I haven't heard of this problem happening >>> in a released version of Git. >>> >>> I'm CC'ing Jonathan Nieder who recently saw this happening, but that >>> was on a newer version than 2.30.0 with a topic that is not part >>> of 2.30.0. But maybe the version shipped internally is versioned >>> without extra information on top of the latest tag? (I see your >>> @google.com email, which makes me think you have an internal version.) >> >> Ah, the issue indeed first showed up as I was using the internal >> version. I then installed mainline 2.30.0 to check that it reproduced >> on the same local repository before reporting a bug. > > The mainline does have the BUG() statement, but it's really reflecting > bad data in the commit-graph file. That data was written by the internal > version and was not reset until you rewrote the file. Thanks for digging, you two. The above clearly explains the symptom. > Thanks, but let me know if it reproduces again. The bug should be fixed > in ds/commit-graph-genno-fix [1], and I think the Google internal release > has been rolled back until that branch is included. The topic has been cooking in 'next' since Feb 3rd, so jrnieder's team would probably have already picked it up. It would be in 'master', together with the ak/corrected-commit-date topic it builds on, not in a very distant future (typically a topic cooks in 'next' for a week, unless it is a trivial typofix, doc updates, that sort of low-impact change). Thanks.