On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/receive-pack.c b/builtin/receive-pack.c
>> index e76e5d5..0803fd2 100644
>> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
>> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
>> @@ -1059,6 +1059
Stefan Beller writes:
> * update(...) assumes to be always in a transaction
> * Caring about when to begin/commit transactions is put
> into execute_commands
I am obviously biased, but I find that the new code structure and
separation of responsibility between update() and ex
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg
>
> Update receive-pack to use an atomic transaction iff the client negotiated
> that it wanted atomic-push. This leaves the default behavior to be the old
> non-atomic one ref at a time update. This is to cause as litt
From: Ronnie Sahlberg
Update receive-pack to use an atomic transaction iff the client negotiated
that it wanted atomic-push. This leaves the default behavior to be the old
non-atomic one ref at a time update. This is to cause as little disruption
as possible to existing clients. It is unknown if
4 matches
Mail list logo
