Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> It is a good idea to implicitly include the promisor-remote to the
>> set of secondary places to consult to help existing versions of Git,
>> but once the repository starts fetching incomplete subgraphs and
>> adding new object.missingobjectremote [*1*], these versions of Git
>> will stop working correctly, so I am not sure if it is all that
>> useful approach for compatibility in practice.
>
> Can you spell this out for me more? Do you mean that a remote from
> this list might make a promise that the original partialClone remote
> can't keep?
It was my failed attempt to demonstrate that I understood what was
being discussed by rephrasing JTan's
Or allow extensions.partialClone=<R> wherein <R> is not in the
missingObjectRemote, in which case <R> is tried first, so that
we don't have to reject some configurations.
