From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9771F453 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 03:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729337AbeJ2Mbx (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 08:31:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:35130 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729301AbeJ2Mbx (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2018 08:31:53 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id w5-v6so7066203wrt.2 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:45:01 -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:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=jVvxh/VCL5IJ/bnSZ+DE8hTNHRcF44dxuVuPkNUKvdk=; b=bTUI+qBrqjrDboLN3Rw0fGgVCaIZO03GzLS4QvCPbdVFIPtwVkQmhj64eFYHp//8rm eiI866R11M07sMLqKmW9PfsAZeGW8640DG8gCAKwFneaoGJQziF5dPEcKOn5igLKE79E aV/UI00c5P+KPLvvJ+tA0u10va9mrXc6bmlA8zyrwqRWgIVIZka+2+RtNLLWFaKelM5h WUdYjS08vzbiCIfKde4++PfM6TltxgtrOwfL8RgpE9URc0pOPlXbk7nigYgrZ1oN1yGu 0h6hk8FCRyZ6hc+e0MCTbjC+iZzU6GKeu89+cFS/o+mHRauDMmcvPKEI25p61X84UDRc pjMA== 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 :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=jVvxh/VCL5IJ/bnSZ+DE8hTNHRcF44dxuVuPkNUKvdk=; b=hozHNZxisQIiH/a7ZOB+yuU0GfEQIuJh+mb1Y1C9rPiG7ay2xQsMkMkRfKGbnuo5aB 4BMQhiBKSing/AotlCa7RpoYsMdK9boSvWRWhNaQjYmxvRS0Rm0GbGIXOVj8w5UFkqIi EnTaeaxtn6gFGq+5EktqoSwsf/iG7Xt7nBB0YEla2kD8jG/Fonep+Yo8kNwdmyP/OVMl GaQkZANOsPmAs+qTrumC5mIIcfsJxIVw/4vKd+snqc9Nk9/ogkG1dl1sydRsX9YTIwvx Be9lwpI7M4XjHe9xMgvtAIIR5GI2P/e9ljn9I9GklSnF5wGJ2DqkNuUrKt4Um6W1Zhvr 4A/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLck7n2PmnA2JUe5GedFmWGbfYUvYSjxLygoaaah9lape5EIi0R vsHBpmiqTcoFpYuPKUgeiCpR7mMIbh0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ejkwNRFa+iagkMCGxUyY7YEkpdRjUSnxr2evhbKeR7cklVcPf//t6etzuHaAqxNJu0SZwrBg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:8065:: with SMTP id 92-v6mr12753708wrk.23.1540784700337; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 191-v6sm11021606wmk.30.2018.10.28.20.44.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:44:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Tim Schumacher , Duy Nguyen Subject: Re: [PATCH] alias: detect loops in mixed execution mode References: <87o9dar9qc.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181018225739.28857-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20181019220755.GA31563@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87ftx0dg4r.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181020185852.GA6234@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20181026083905.GA1705@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:44:58 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Hmph. So I was speaking before purely hypothetically, but now that your > patch is in 'next', it is part of my daily build. And indeed, I hit a > false positive within 5 minutes of building it. ;) Sounds like somebody is having not-so-fun-a-time having "I told you so" moment. The 'dotgit' thing already feels bit convoluted but I would say that it is still within the realm of reasonable workflow elements. > ... > With your patch, step 3 complains: > > $ git dotgit ll > fatal: alias loop detected: expansion of 'dotgit' does not terminate: > dotgit <== > ll ==> > > So I would really prefer a depth counter that can be set sufficiently > high to make this case work. ;) Sounds like a concrete enough case to demonstrate why one-level deep loop detector is not sufficient X-<.