From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C99A20D09 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:02:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751238AbdFECCW (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:02:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:36551 "EHLO mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751189AbdFECCU (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:02:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f66.google.com with SMTP id v18so4759454pgb.3 for ; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:02:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4YhuucbaJhfxKuW+ToSMqfat/gHCDM0mVKF7XGJmjns=; b=TY2KJG9ugJ/OKB3u9ZHUaohBDwrj76BNQo0Xc9Zx+IHJ9H5FtT2ZovoWXE7aQsCsnM ccmuUUo219CupfiNbktCVdBiHe/yOHWWcn5G68ow4rFJ8X2iapDYhXw64rgeLDgm7Opo f+9xOdXLy+fPQlpRGJoBHT9cObPc/WH//3ICYhkNX//qzQYZqDPZNXui/T+37olDWUnF Dt53TP66UO1qEr4fHBl4CXrtIFNqAnqshBFTT4XQv3s40Ay7mMUgOLQqaLKqZPj0uPxl 1GvzqGdrjtrbMrG6Pm76SfNqO6cYSFE8JalXSPM8vaZu7tHIZsTgfLs2HO/R44tXmhjQ oBOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4YhuucbaJhfxKuW+ToSMqfat/gHCDM0mVKF7XGJmjns=; b=NtGzXMxQxTtp0RfbLxsKFwa3JP8eSX+xXqOB7b5HwY+FgFcW49w6GSeuFTr4Tvlqjl VCpPaFuQ9Umokx34akJLtxWQoq2leksEew3Db/LrTMeEmgagjZXC705/pqPR8tJxiz+J M6+m4NoeTiFDjnueTiht8guRY6nMbpD9Tv68r0FN0XXFgDAlTD0vKaPg5GvB0FPLQNnD TTEzbT1uKjC5yiEQpAOJJNbaYRjJWnTwa3rgrpQxdaI6ipNsjWcxYweUC8lNerxy8DAa zMEmRcj4qg8CG6zKQ5hmJDQJLzYty0omY/+DR3nPxgad7baxBzXNoiwzHJ34pQmMjUH8 +OPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAGm5w89r/hjh2cQyNTYhDY85YOdwXx71HEJaGwuXStnRW90kAs h8h4PFkdCXLPuQU3VEI= X-Received: by 10.84.210.44 with SMTP id z41mr9172489plh.143.1496628139903; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:a83a:973:bb14:324a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm8401023pgd.26.2017.06.04.19.02.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Jun 2017 19:02:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Jeff King , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: work around the tested repo having an index.lock References: <20170602103330.25663-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20170602184506.x2inwswmcwafyvfy@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:02:18 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:37:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: >> >>>> My feeling exactly. Diagnosing and failing upfront saying "well you >>>> made a copy but it is not suitable for testing" sounds more sensible >>>> at lesat to me. >>> >>> This change makes the repo suitable for testing when it wasn't before. >> >> Perhaps "not suitable" was a bit too vague. >> >> The copy you made is not in a consistent state that is good for >> testing. This change may declare that it is now in a consistent >> state, but removal of a single *.lock file does not make it so. We >> do not know what other transient inconsistency the resulting copy >> has; it is inherent to git-unaware copy---that is why we discouraged >> and removed rsync transport after all. > > If we don't like git-unaware copies, maybe we should go back to the > reasons why we are making one here. We do need git-unaware bit-for-bit copy for testing, because you may want to see the effect of unreachable objects, for example. It's just that git-unaware copies, because it cannot be an atomic snapshot, can introduce inconsistencies the original repository did not have, rendering the result ineffective.