Re: [PATCH 2/2] refs_resolve_ref_unsafe: handle d/f conflicts for writes

2017-11-04 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 10/07/2017 06:36 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: >> >>> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had >>> time to check... >>> >>> Does this patch make it

Re: [PATCH 2/2] refs_resolve_ref_unsafe: handle d/f conflicts for writes

2017-10-06 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 10/06/2017 07:16 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had >> time to check... >> >> Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that >> d/f

Re: [PATCH 2/2] refs_resolve_ref_unsafe: handle d/f conflicts for writes

2017-10-06 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 07:09:10PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > I do have one twinge of uneasiness at a deeper level, that I haven't had > time to check... > > Does this patch make it easier to *set* HEAD to an unborn branch that > d/f conflicts with an existing reference? If so, that might

Re: [PATCH 2/2] refs_resolve_ref_unsafe: handle d/f conflicts for writes

2017-10-06 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 10/06/2017 04:42 PM, Jeff King wrote: > If our call to refs_read_raw_ref() fails, we check errno to > see if the ref is simply missing, or if we encountered a > more serious error. If it's just missing, then in "write" > mode (i.e., when RESOLVE_REFS_READING is not set), this is > perfectly