On 2019.04.11 00:06, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 04:42:55PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote: > > > > warning: reflog of 'HEAD' references pruned commits > > > warning: reflog of 'refs/heads/master' references pruned commits > > > fatal: unable to read 71905dfcd543b7cbb0b4b66fbd20379e67220557 > > > error: last command exited with $?=128 > > > not ok 23 - repack -d does not irreversibly delete promisor objects > > > > > > > Thank you for catching this. I haven't yet figured out the cause. I will > > look into this more tomorrow and then send a V4 once I've fixed it. > > I'm concerned that this is a sign that the approach I suggested does not > actually work everywhere. I.e., could this be a case where we have some > non-promisor object that points to a sub-object that is reachable from > the promisor pack, but not a direct tip? Before your patch we'd consider > that sub-object a promisor (because we enumerate all of the graph that > we do have and mark each such object), but afterwards we would not. > > And I wonder if that confuses pack-objects. Though I think it would > confuse it in the _opposite_ direction. I.e., using > --exclude-promisor-objects would count such an object as not-a-promisor > and would be more inclined to include it in the new pack. > > It is curious that this only turns up with GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH=1, too. > It seems like any such problem ought to be independent of that. > > Puzzling... > > -Peff Do you think this justifies going back to the V1 approach (only checking presence of objects pointed to by refs when doing a partial clone)?
