11:26:31 danmcd: Hi Dan, seems this commit had issues that the code is into the comments, 3b2267a71a62a26 11:27:30 can I help to do the merge from illumos-gate upstream? 13:19:15 Yeah.... 13:19:36 I was supposed to include the merge-generated commit, and instead I included the file that was in conflict. 13:19:50 ALSO, there's a breakage in LX because of the changes in fifofs. 13:20:21 I'm locally building the fix right now, and weighing whether or not to force-push a cleaner 13:20:23 merge. 13:20:53 The catch is force-push may break multiple things. I need to speak with folks who are in US/Pacific about it. 13:25:06 "merge-generated commit text..." 13:27:16 Okay, the small LX fix worked. So I haven't pushed the small LX fix upstream because, as mentioned, how destructive a force-push to illumos-joyent will be. 13:28:31 (The two choices are push the LX fix, maybe with some extra commit comments, or force-pushing, which cleans up the merge commit, but with an unknown-to-me cost.) 13:38:00 Oh @tozhu you missed my response. 13:38:26 So there's a source file because I mistyped the filename in "git commit -F " 13:38:54 Also, unrelated, LX needs an update to cope with jinni illumos#16538 13:38:55 https://www.illumos.org/issues/16538 13:39:20 So the merge is okay modulo the very confusing whole-source-file commit message (the source file that was in conflict during the merge). 13:39:39 My first instinct, a force-push with things cleaned, is not necessarily the right thing to do. 13:40:02 I'm waiting for someone in Pacific Time to contemplate what a force-push might break. 13:41:52 danmcd: okay, got it, thank you very much 13:42:23 If you build locally, the patch to LX's lx_splice.c is quite small. 13:42:36 /* Update vnode update access time */ 13:42:36 - fnp->fn_atime = fnp->fn_dest->fn_atime = gethrestime_sec(); 13:42:36 + gethrestime(&fnp->fn_dest->fn_atime); 13:42:38 + fnp->fn_atime = fnp->fn_dest->fn_atime; 13:43:11 okay, I’ll try it later today 13:52:04 @tozhu I hope to have a full fix upstream before 12noon US/Eastern. 13:52:09 (one or the other) 13:57:43 danmcd: Thank you very much, I’ll wait for the fix, than you :-) 15:39:02 @tozhu might be later than 12noonET. 15:40:27 danmcd: no problem, if I can help, please feel free to let me know, thank you very much 15:41:07 I mostly need to consult with bahamat about pros/cons of force-push to correct illumos-joyent or not. 16:58:33 And tozhu has left again... 17:17:29 one of the things you can do prior to a force-push to confirm that it contains what you expect (confirm that a merge+fixup commits is the same as a rebase) is to compare the git tree-hash - a hash of the tree contents (file & directory contents), ignoring the history. "git rev-parse HEAD:" shows the tree hash of the root of the tree at HEAD; you can also do a git rev-parse HEAD:usr/src/uts if you want to look at the tree-hash of subtrees. 17:20:25 I was less worried about that (already did that via brute-force diff(1) of no-gitfiles usr/src) than I was about lots of auto-down-stream-pulls that would trainwreck over a force-push upstream. 17:20:29 (e.g. our own Jenkins) 17:22:07 We also have some bots that interface with github and our jira, and a source code search/browser, which would all need to manually be corrected. Then there's the matter of getting everyone in the wild to roll back history correctly.