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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393BD1F462 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 23:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727050AbfE0X1Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 19:27:25 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com ([209.85.217.67]:36810 "EHLO mail-vs1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726772AbfE0X1Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2019 19:27:25 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id l20so11600457vsp.3 for ; Mon, 27 May 2019 16:27:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cLCwGywsEwF5VjXfrWgvD5lR8Z8r6MyaV3Rzltm4eCQ=; b=BsdUZwSxJ4CO0hayMRzmHulmaP92yThbBnH9DWFO8Y8xfU0FNSGZ6x8Je/DEKzQcdz iYr9xK2F3yjmq8sZXYLVo9N22ATsbeSno7qRoDlUoRPVnndQTOUq8LSBxJGiZ9cPQxI4 2m7NeukxHvx9u7Q773+nTvjyFjHjAoPZdPOnKADZ7FLjzPlNZuudrcd3xZc3qvJimJN7 T41hQvau7hdKoqI7VhMy7jEfHnE7PUJ4sUiN91gZkQoD7hXnvKni3hXWazf913IIfWWJ 2I19CEeKrf3exQWB3vpTr/Vn/rvBlmVwaXzxLNEjqkboixQmMI6MYh0x5RD7Gag3L8le N6Dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cLCwGywsEwF5VjXfrWgvD5lR8Z8r6MyaV3Rzltm4eCQ=; b=TtAlQWTFFKPSdlZZiyZ8YL8UV7WgJAo5Jr+dy/x74ZxfwMjlGix+59JeixpR8a7nvL FR//8qt+FTOW5364ktng7hAcjsEuErUA8bofmpJfnCfOd6jIzM6+QFLvjzO0ik0LfG6q KQ+uYARvUNr+kI04n5zexfVyENcz1HBk5AGJSrUpz8NYy0u+3lanKsbWsJrQUfrXa+Wn TjaEuHqIV1CGTMlxuibOksUmsU7z3Cwm+6X//urO6DdpppKcg0dvzzIy3xWlFDaeZk3Y 8ArkNFOvsb4CFStE4PBfe4/XN5tFWbeCqTJDK/NZCyIXVte1XeBDRN+LGkiKKZqHhnfX w52A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXSGBIVpKswJTw2CABx7CHCEqgIEdqrcs3YnMPU6+pgGY/tRP6q 54BixEcZJaAowjYsj8PM5cROVAQG4EpT9ZJ1DAr4pdUg X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnyFBMVSBkXX9GNshgaj42CNrRAO/xZiK/6NKSMkMaZGwH0KFndGaFqwFOrpaCKrEqBl2juPaLUsW5dqfHb4M= X-Received: by 2002:a67:6484:: with SMTP id y126mr41487967vsb.117.1558999644591; Mon, 27 May 2019 16:27:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190527211245.12292-1-newren@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 16:27:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fast-import: checkpoint: only write out refs and tags if we changed them To: Eric Rannaud Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Jeremy Serror Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Eric, On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Rannaud wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:12 PM Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:10 PM Eric Rannaud wrote: > > I think the test will not fail without the patch (and therefore won't > catch a regression): while checkpoint doesn't currently check the > failure flag, it will be checked when cmd_main() returns so > exit_status will be 1. Ooh, good catch. > You either want to: > - (a) add more independent commands after the checkpoint and check > that they were not run, > - or (b) run with --done, do not include a done command, and check > that fast-import does exit (but it's racy), > - or (c) you can reuse background_import to have a more explicit > sequence of events (in which case improvements to background_import > from my patch would have to be committed first). That sounds good...though it's taking my short patch and just about amounts to completely rewriting it. Would you like to take it over including authorship, and just add either a "Original-patch-by:" or "Based-on-patch-by:" for me in the commit message (these two tags appear to be the two most common attribution mechanism used in git.git's history when someone does this)? > > + cat >input <<-INPUT_END && > > + feature done > > + commit refs/heads/V3 > > + mark :3 > > + committer Me My 1234567890 +0123 > > You likely want to use: > committer $GIT_COMMITTER_NAME <$GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL> $GIT_COMMITTER_DATE I see other tests in that testsuite using this, and using it here certainly wouldn't hurt; I'm not opposed to it. But I'm curious...other than "other tests in the same testcase use it a lot" I don't see why the choice of committer name/email/date matters at all. Is there an actual reason for this that I just missed? Cheers, Elijah