> > > @@ -373,6 +375,7 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > > > init_revisions(&revs, prefix); > > > revs.abbrev = DEFAULT_ABBREV; > > > revs.commit_format = CMIT_FMT_UNSPECIFIED; > > > + revs.do_not_die_on_missing_tree = 1; > > > > Is this correct? I would have expected this to be set only if --missing > > was set. > If --missing is not set, then we want to fetch missing objects > automatically, and then die if we fail to do that, which is what > happens for blobs. This is true, and should already be handled. Pay attention to when fetch_if_missing is set in builtin/rev-list.c. do_not_die_on_missing_tree should probably be set to 1 whenever fetch_if_missing is set to 0, I think. (I acknowledge that the usage of this global variable is confusing, but I couldn't think of a better way to implement this when I did. Perhaps when the object store refactoring is done, this can be a store-specific setting instead of a global variable.) > So we don't want to die in list-objects.c. If we > fail to fetch, then we will die on line 213 in rev-list.c. Why don't we want to die in list-objects.c? When --missing=error is passed, fetch_if_missing retains its default value of 1, so parse_tree_gently() will attempt to fetch it - and if it fails, I think it's appropriate to die in list-objects.c (and this should be the current behavior). On other values, e.g. --missing=allow-any, there is no autofetch (since fetch_if_missing is 0), so it is correct not to die in list-objects.c. > > As for --missing=allow-promisor, I don't see them being tested anywhere > > :-( so feel free to make a suggestion. I would put them in t6112 for > > easy comparison with the other --missing tests. > Kept my allow-promisor test in t0410 since it requires partial clone > to be turned on in the config, and because it is pretty similar to > --exclude-promisor-objects. OK, sounds good to me.
