Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > This is definitely a strict improvement over the current behavior > (though I agree with Dscho's comments on the error message). A few > further thoughts: > > - we'll have successfully completed the rest of the clone at this > point. Should we leave the objects and refs in place to allow the > user to fix it up, as we do when "git checkout" fails? > > We'd have to leave _something_ in HEAD for it to be a valid repo. I > guess just "refs/heads/master" would be fine, or perhaps we could > fall back to whatever the other side had in their HEAD (i.e., > pretending that "-b" wasn't specified). Do we know for sure that the object at HEAD on the other side is a commit, or do we need to prepare for a case where it is not? I suspect it is the latter. HEAD needs to exist and point at a ref that is in refs/heads/ hierarchy, and the ref can even be unborn, so falling back on 'master' sounds like a good position. > - there's a related case just above the lines you touched: what > happens if the other side feeds us a non-commit in their > refs/heads/? That shouldn't happen (i.e., their repo is broken), but > should we be protecting ourselves on the receiving side more? > > Likewise in "else" below just above your lines. Both are good points. Thanks, all.
