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 E5FB01F4B4 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 20:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388307AbhAOUG7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:06:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:59313 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726467AbhAOUG6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:06:58 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F821104357; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:06:16 -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=pj1UvJ9esUlYSbyEOemIGGxt2XI=; b=otuCwv i19Ck/qlkxv/3xUfRZvHqkrsp+/F8aNcpc2bwl0roQ/hSVGioX6WWTCUkpckZfRf VuqLZp8JgKn6LXre4/JzpDWcMUVC2eauaDIrdTUhp7RtzFQQe/BzNAGY4vGonn5R TXKCEbKTxwTvQ/msG3tm6B9TUGssa3H33xTi8= 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=mSL7H+UcxTc3aI844RDS1aZwJrWiKc9H QoFnEakvG4tTX2Xng6qYOG59EvA7sU+goEjMbiWLCaMO2eQBKfZYLWXVeFKPlrrE uMzAjEi6HlwD8ab3mLLMTNckwWCI/493nCRWsMlpurcAkEU4YLZpi4J+S8nV8nFp B3TEWJ2YUBE= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48973104355; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:06:16 -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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F37210434C; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:06:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Phil Hord , Git , Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] use delete_refs when deleting tags or branches References: <20190814024927.13167-1-phil.hord@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:06:11 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:43:07 -0800") 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: 1E47FEB2-576D-11EB-93C2-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > Overall, I like the patch. Peff commented on v1 that the basic idea > (use the part of the refs API that batches operations) is the right > thing to do. I concur; I agree with the general direction. Where do we reject branch deletion based on the merged-ness? When we ask to delete three branches and one is not merged yet and cannot be removed (let's say we are not "--force"ing) but the other two are OK to remove, we do want the other two branches to go. I didn't check what the patch does with respect to this point, but as long as the updated code does not make it "all or none", it would be great. > I would say Reviewed-by, but I'd like to get Junio's comments on the > return code and minor race. It would have to wait a bit more. Thanks for a review.