On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:15:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Jonathan Tan [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ void prune_shallow(unsigned options)
 	} else {
 		unlink(git_path_shallow(the_repository));
 		rollback_lock_file(&shallow_lock);
+		reset_repository_shallow(the_repository);
 	}
 	strbuf_release(&sb);
 }

The "if" part (not quoted here) commits the shallow lock file, and thus
possibly modifies (or creates) the shallow file, so I think we need to
put reset_repository_shallow() outside the whole "if" block. I have done
that in the patch after the scissors.

Is there any rollback_lock_file() or commit_lock_file() call on the
shallow lock file in the files involved in this patch that does not
need a call to reset_repository_shallow() left after your work?

What I am trying to get at is if it would be safer to have a pair of
thin wrapper for rolling back or committing a new version of new
shallow file, e.g. rollback_shallow_file() + commit_shallow_file(),
and replace calls to {rollback,commit}_lock_file() with calls to
them.

Very elegant. Thanks for an excellent suggestion. v2 incoming just as
soon as 'make test' finishes...

Thanks,
Taylor