Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > It is possible that we may drop an object that is depended >> > upon by another object in the alternate. For example, >> > imagine two repositories, A and B, with A pointing to B as >> > an alternate. Now imagine a commit that is in B which >> > references a tree that is only in A. Traversing from recent >> > objects in B might prevent A from dropping that tree. But >> > this case isn't worth covering. Repo B should take >> > responsibility for its own objects. It would never have had >> > the commit in the first place if it did not also have the >> > tree, and assuming it is using the same "keep recent chunks >> > of history" scheme, then it would itself keep the tree, as >> > well. >> >> In other words, if you have a loop in dependency chain among >> alternate repositories, your set-up is broken by definition. >> >> Which makes sense to me. >> >> Thanks. > > I don't see this patch in "pu" or "What's Cooking" at all. Did it get > dropped? It appears that way (rather, "never picked up"). Thanks for reminding. > > It does fix a performance regression, but the problem is in v2.2, so I > don't think it's urgent for v2.4-rc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html