On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 05:34:22PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I just left a rather lengthy review of the split-HEAD patch in v4. I > > think hit has a few bugs that we need to address. > > > > I'm not sure if the right answer is to just go back to the v3 version > > that simply rejected the racy HEAD update (since that's more or less > > what happens now and nobody complains). > > > > If we do want to stick with the "silently skip the racy HEAD update" > > strategy from v4, I left some fixes there. But I'd worry more about > > maintainability and regressions in the future. I'm not sure if my hacky > > "pretend the HEAD is this for splitting" patch is something we'd want to > > carry or not. But if so, I think we could at least get a little coverage > > in the test suite. > > Between the "honestry admit we failed and reject" and "silently > pretend nothing bad happened", I'd have to say that the former may > be more preferrable, and I hope people would agree. I think I don't think it's pretending that nothing bad happened, though. The user did not ask us to update HEAD, and we are able to fill their original request completely. So there really was nothing bad that happened. To me the options are "try to do the best thing in a racy situation, even though it almost never happens and will be complex and somewhat untested" vs "do the simple and stupid thing that does not happen enough for anyone to care too much". -Peff
