On 11/20/2014 12:22 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
Sorry for the long delay.
Thanks for the explanation and discussion.
So do I understand it right, that you are not opposing
the introduction of everything should go through transactions
but rather the detail and abstraction level of the API?
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
I also have some thoughts about how those operations can be
implemented without such a performance hit (reading the whole
reflog into memory as part of the transaction seems problematic to
me), but that should probably wait for a separate message
Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 11/20/2014 12:22 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
3. Delete the reflog when the corresponding reference is deleted [1].
also as one transaction?
It would be a side-effect of committing a transaction that contains a
reference deletion. The deletion of the reflog would be
Sorry for the long delay.
Thanks for the explanation and discussion.
So do I understand it right, that you are not opposing
the introduction of everything should go through transactions
but rather the detail and abstraction level of the API?
So starting from Michaels proposal in the first
Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
Sorry for the long delay.
Thanks for the explanation and discussion.
So do I understand it right, that you are not opposing
the introduction of everything should go through transactions
but rather the detail and abstraction level of the API?
For what it's worth, I
On 11/18/2014 02:35 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
The following patch series updates the reflog handling to use transactions.
This patch series has previously been sent to the list[1].
[...]
I was reviewing this patch series (I left some comments in Gerrit about
the first few patches) when I
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 11/18/2014 02:35 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
The following patch series updates the reflog handling to use transactions.
This patch series has previously been sent to the list[1].
[...]
I was reviewing this patch
On 11/18/2014 07:36 PM, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
On 11/18/2014 02:35 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
The following patch series updates the reflog handling to use transactions.
This patch series has previously been sent to
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I'm still not convinced. For me, reflog_expire() is an unusual outlier
operation, much like git gc or git pack-refs or git fsck. None of
these are part of the beautiful Git data model; they are messy
maintenance operations. Forcing reference
On 11/18/2014 09:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I'm still not convinced. For me, reflog_expire() is an unusual outlier
operation, much like git gc or git pack-refs or git fsck. None of
these are part of the beautiful Git data model; they are messy
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Sorry, but I lost track---which one is inside and which one is
outside?
By inside I mean the code that would be within the reference-handling
library if we had such a thing; i.e., implemented in refs.c. By
outside I mean in the code that calls
11 matches
Mail list logo
