Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I can see some use for this parameter - for example, when doing a report > for statistical purposes (percentage of objects missing, for example) or > for a background task that downloads missing objects into a cache. Also, > power users who know what they're doing (or normal users in an > emergency) can use this option when they have no network connection if > they really need to find something out from the local repo. > > In these cases, the promisor check (after detecting that the object is > missing) is indeed not so useful, I think. (Or we can do the > --exclude=missing and --exclude=promisor idea that Jeff mentioned - > --exclude=missing now, and --exclude=promisor after we add promisor > support.) This sounds like a reasonable thing to have in the endgame state to me. > Having said that, I would be OK if we didn't have tolerance (and/or > reporting) of missing objects right now. As far as I know, for the > initial implementation of partial clone, only the server performs any > filtering, and we assume that the server possesses all objects (so it > does not need to filter out any missing objects). True. It does not have to exist in an early part, but I do not think we would terribly mind if it does, if only to help debugging and development. Thanks for thinking it through.
