Reject combinations of --batch (or --batch-keys) with options like --all or
--key or with filenames.
Most commands ignored the non-batch items when batch mode was enabled.
For some reason, addurl and dropkey both processed first the specified
non-batch items, followed by entering batch mode. Changed them to also
error out, for consistency.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
autoUpgradeableVersions had latestVersion (10), but it did not make
sense for asking for old version 6 to get version 10, while asking for
version 8 got version 8. So use defaultVersion (8) instead.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
The problem is that withContentLockFile, in a v8 repo, has to take a shared
lock of `.git/annex/content.lck`. But, in a readonly repository, if that
file does not yet exist, it cannot lock it. And while it will sometimes
work to `chmod +r .git/annex`, the repository might be readonly due to
being owned by another user, or due to being mounted readonly.
So, it seems that the only solution is to use some other file than
`.git/annex/content.lck` as the lock file. The inode sential file
was almost the only option that should always exist. (And if it somehow
does not exist, creating an empty one for locking will be ok.)
Wow, what a hack!
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
That left the repo in v8, but with filter.annex.process set. Instead,
only warn, and defer the v10 upgrade.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
This has tradeoffs, but is generally a win, and users who it causes git add to
slow down unacceptably for can just disable it again.
It needed to happen in an upgrade, since there are git-annex versions
that do not support it, and using such an old version with a v8
repository with filter.annex.process set will cause bad behavior.
By enabling it in v9, it's guaranteed that any git-annex version that
can use the repository does support it. Although, this is not a perfect
protection against problems, since an old git-annex version, if it's
used with a v9 repository, will cause git add to try to run
git-annex filter-process, which will fail. But at least, the user is
unlikely to have an old git-annex in path if they are using a v9
repository, since it won't work in that repository.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Capstone of the v10 upgrade process.
Tested with a git-annex drop in a v8 repo that had a local v8 remote.
Upgrading the repo to v10 (with --force) immedaitely caused it to notice
and switch over to v10 locking. Upgrading the remote also caused it to
switch over when operating on the remote.
The InodeCache makes this fairly efficient, just an added stat call per
lock of an object file. After the v10 upgrade, there is no more
overhead.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Since it's easy to keep supporting v8, using it for a while (eg a few
months) will give users time to upgrade git-annex installations, before
it upgrades their repository to v9.
This commit should be reverted once ready to start upgrading
repositories by default.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
The v10 upgrade should almost be safe now. What remains to be done is
notice when the v10 upgrade has occurred, while holding the shared lock,
and switch to using v10 lock files.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
The upgrade from V9 uses this to avoid an automatic upgrade until 1 year
after the V9 update. It can also be used in future such situations.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
v10 will run 1 year after the upgrade to v9, to give time for any v8
processes to die. Until that point, the v10 upgrade will be tried by
every process but deferred, so added support for deferring upgrades.
The upgrade prevention lock file that will be used by v10 is not yet
implemented, so it does not yet defer.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
Upgrade the shared lock to an exclusive lock, and then delete the
lock file. If there is another process still holding the shared lock,
the first process will fail taking the exclusive lock, and not delete
the lock file; then the other process will later delete it.
Note that, in the time period where the exclusive lock is held, other
attempts to lock the content in place would fail. This is unlikely to be
a problem since it's a short period.
Other attempts to lock the content for removal would also fail in that
time period, but that's no different than a removal failing because
content is locked to prevent removal.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
When dropping content, this was already done after deleting the content
file, but the lock file prevents deleting the directories. So, try the
deletion again.
This does mean there's a small added overhead of a failed rmdir().
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
