On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:13:07AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kirill Smelkov <kirr@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > ( Junio, please pick up the patch provided in the end ) > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 06:54:17PM +0000, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 05:48:49AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 09:43:02AM +0000, Kirill Smelkov wrote: > > [...] > > > >> > > I'm not sure, but I would say that `fetch-pack --all` from an empty > >> > > repository should not fail and should just give empty output as fetch > >> > > does. > >> > > >> > Yeah, that seems reasonable to me. The die() that catches this dates > >> > back to 2005-era, and we later taught the "fetch" porcelain to handle > >> > this. I don't _think_ anybody would be upset that the plumbing learned > >> > to treat this as a noop. It's probably a one-liner change in > >> > fetch_pack() to return early instead of dying. > > I actually have a slight preference to the current "attempting to > fetch from a total emptiness is so rare that it is worth grabbing > attention of whoever does so" behaviour, to be honest. I see. > Oh, wait, is this specific to "fetch-pack" and the behaviour of > end-user-facing "git fetch" is kept same as before? If then, I'd be > somewhat sympathetic to the cause---it would be more convenient for > the calling Porcelain script if this turned into a silent noop (even > though it would probably make it harder to diagnose when such a > Porcelain is set up incorrectly e.g. pointing at an empty repository > that is not the one the Porcelain writer intended to fetch from). Yes, it is only for fetch-pack, and behaviour of porcelain fetch is kept as it was before. > > However with transport.c being there too, since I'm no longer using > > `fetch-pack --all`, now it is best for me to not delve into this story > > and just stop with attached patch. > > If we do not plan to change the behaviour later ourselves, I do not > think it makes sense, nor it is fair to those future developers who > inherit this project, to declare that the established behaviour is > wrong with an 'expect-failure' test like this, to be honest. I see. Let's please cancel this patch then. > > +test_expect_failure 'test --all wrt empty.git' ' > > + git init --bare empty.git && > > + ( > > + cd client && > > + git fetch-pack --all ../empty.git > > + ) > > +'
