Hi Peff, On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 09:41:13AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 10:36:48PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > > Of those, I think (3) is probably the best path forward. However, this > > > > patch does none of them. In the name of expediently fixing the > > > > regression to a normal "rev-list --objects" that we use for connectivity > > > > checks, this simply restores the pre-7c0fe330d5 behavior of having the > > > > traversal die as soon as it fails to load a tree (when --missing is set > > > > to MA_ERROR, which is the default). > > > > > > I think this is worth doing, as it restores the earlier behavior. But a > > > few general thoughts (which I've shared already with you, but for the > > > benefit of the list): > > > > I agree that it's worth doing. One question that I have is _when_ you > > feel it's good to do. I'm happy to write it and include the change in > > v2, but if others would be happy not to grow the series too much between > > re-rolls, I'd be just as pleased to send it in a new series after this > > one. > > I'm not sure what "it" is here. Yes... as I read this email again after the weekend had passed, I found myself a little confused, too. > My earlier message was admittedly rambling, but I think I'm arguing > that it's OK to continue to include this patch that you already have, > and punt further changes to make "rev-list --objects" detect blob > problems down the road. I.e., leave the two expect_failures in place > that your v1 series ends with. I believe that that was the "it" that I was talking about it. To be explicit, I think I was suggesting that we should not change this patch much or add more to the series, and rather address the blob checking in a new series after this one. > -Peff Thanks, Taylor
