Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Teach fsck to not treat missing objects indirectly pointed to by refs as
> an error when extensions.lazyobject is set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/fsck.c | 11 +++++++++++
> t/t0410-lazy-object.sh | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/fsck.c b/builtin/fsck.c
> index e29ff760b..238532cc2 100644
> --- a/builtin/fsck.c
> +++ b/builtin/fsck.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,15 @@ static int mark_object(struct object *obj, int type, void *data, struct fsck_opt
> return 0;
> obj->flags |= REACHABLE;
> if (!(obj->flags & HAS_OBJ)) {
> + if (repository_format_lazy_object)
> + /*
> + * Return immediately; this is not an error, and further
> + * recursion does not need to be performed on this
> + * object since it is missing (so it does not need to be
> + * added to "pending").
> + */
> + return 0;
> +
The same comment as 2/4 applies here.
> @@ -212,6 +221,8 @@ static void check_reachable_object(struct object *obj)
> * do a full fsck
> */
> if (!(obj->flags & HAS_OBJ)) {
> + if (repository_format_lazy_object)
> + return;
> if (has_sha1_pack(obj->oid.hash))
> return; /* it is in pack - forget about it */
> printf("missing %s %s\n", printable_type(obj),
Also this reminds as a related issue. Imagine:
- An object X was once retrieved, perhaps but not necessarily
lazily, together with another object Y that is referred to by X
(e.g. X is a tree, Y is a blob in the directory at path D, which
is represented by X).
- The same blob Y is added to the index in a different directory at
path E.
- The user decides to make this a slimmed-down "narrow clone" style
repository and tells Git that path D is not interesting. We lose
X, but not Y because Y is still referenced from the index.
- "git reset --hard" happens, and there no longer is any reference
to Y.
Now, when we run fsck, should we diagnose Y as "unreachable and/or
dangling"?
