Jiang Xin [off-list ref] writes:
From: Jiang Xin <redacted>
t5411 has some test cases for the behavior of failed 'git push'
commands. Even the 'git push' command ended, the output file
may still be updated with messages from 'git-receive-pack' command
running in background. This breaks test cases which reuse the
same 'out' file.
I do not recall hearing from SZEDER who raised concerns about "a lot
of churn that can be avoided by a change in the code to die more
gracefully" in his previous round's review. This has been in 'seen'
for a long time, so let's move it down to 'next'.
Thanks.
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] 于2021年2月12日周五 上午5:52写道：
Jiang Xin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
From: Jiang Xin <redacted>
t5411 has some test cases for the behavior of failed 'git push'
commands. Even the 'git push' command ended, the output file
may still be updated with messages from 'git-receive-pack' command
running in background. This breaks test cases which reuse the
same 'out' file.
I do not recall hearing from SZEDER who raised concerns about "a lot
of churn that can be avoided by a change in the code to die more
gracefully" in his previous round's review. This has been in 'seen'
for a long time, so let's move it down to 'next'.
SZEDER's concerns about "a lot of churn that can be avoided ..." is in
this post:
https://public-inbox.org/git/20210120124906.GA8396@szeder.dev/
I think current implementation of the client side of git-push is OK.
It's no necessary to add more code and more roundtrips for git-push
client side to complete the protocol in order to wait for end of the
server.
--
Jiang Xin