Re: [PATCH v2] rerere: keep a background gc from killing a rebase

Hi Phillip,

On 04/09/2026 16:21, Phillip Wood wrote:

With Patricks patches that's no-longer true I think. I think a better
motivation, as the cache is per-repository, rather than per-worktree, is
concurrent writers running in different worktrees.

MERGE_RR is per worktree, though, and so is its lock:

    $ git -C linked rev-parse --git-path MERGE_RR
    /path/to/main/.git/worktrees/linked/MERGE_RR

so writers in different worktrees never meet on it. What they share is
rr-cache, which a gc in one worktree prunes under its own worktree's
lock only. That is a gap of its own, and not one this patch closes.

What remains after Patrick's series is any "git rerere gc" that runs
while a command records a conflict, from "git gc", from a maintenance
run, or from auto maintenance once enough entries are stale. The v3
message says it that way.

Overall, this commit message is rather long and it would be helpful if
you could distill it to remove unnecessary and unrelated details.

Done, it is a quarter of the size now.

Why do those commands fail rather than wait?

They wait like everything else, and once the time is up they fail
instead of going on without rerere, which is all they are for. That
way a stale lock gets the usual advice to remove it. The config text
said otherwise, fixed.

It might be worth adding a check above here that BUG()s out if the
caller passes an incompatible set of flags.

Added, for RERERE_NOWAIT with RERERE_LOCK_OR_DIE and for
RERERE_READONLY with either.

A background job that the user did not explicitly start printing to the
terminal is rather confusing as it is likely to get mixed in with the
output of whatever is running in the foreground.

The detached maintenance run has no terminal: daemonize() closes the
standard descriptors and reopens them on /dev/null, so the gc's
warning goes nowhere when it loses the lock. Where it cannot detach,
on Windows, it runs in the foreground of the commit that started it
and there is no race to lose. The warning the user does see is the
foreground command's own, when it gives up waiting.

Thanks,
Thomas