Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> But with batched transactions that's not possible anymore, as we would >> indeed try to lock the same ref twice. Assuming that this really is the >> case, I wonder whether we should detect this case, tell the user that >> it's impossible to store all refs on their system, and then continue >> regardless while ejecting that specific ref from the transaction. > > Maybe it is too optimistic to think that they will just start using > reftable in Git 3.0, and we can avoid extra code to detect this? Or we can just tell them to use reftable way before Git 3.0; it is not like we feel that the reftable is way too unstable that we won't tag Git 3.0 until it gets ready---it is ready now.
