Martin Fick <> writes:

> 3) To create a ref, it must be renamed from the null file (sha 
> 0000...) to the new value just as if it were being updated 
> from any other value, but there is one extra condition: 
> before renaming the null file, a full directory scan must be 
> done to ensure that the null file is the only file in the 
> directory...

While you are scanning this directory to make sure it is empty, I am
contemplating to create the same ref with a different value.  You
finished checking but haven't created the null. I have also scanned,
created the null and renamed it to my value.  Now you try to create
the null, succeed, and then rename.  We won't know which of the two
non-null values are valid, but worse yet, I think one of them should
have failed in the first place.

Sounds like we would need some form of locking around here.  Is your
goal "no locks", or "less locks"?

> I don't know how this new scheme could be made to work with 
> the current scheme,...

It is much more important to know if/why yours is better than the
current scheme in the first place.  Without an analysis on how the
new scheme interacts with the packed refs and gives better
behaviour, that is kinda difficult.

I think transition plans can wait until that is done.  If it is not
even marginally better, we do not have to worry about transitioning
at all.  If it is only marginally better, the transition has to be
designed to be no impact to the existing repositories.  If it is
vastly better, we might be able to afford a flag day.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to