On 11/8/2019 6:41 PM, Bryan Turner wrote: Hi Bryan, > Just a quick question about a behavior I've noticed with the commit > graph. (Amazing feature, by the way!) > If the _very first_ write done is split: > git commit-graph write --reachable --split > > You end up with something like this: > .../objects$ ls -R info > info: > commit-graphs packs > > info/commit-graphs: > commit-graph-chain graph-6612fcc8fd04d3af2cc268a6bd9161ae40f5fcbf.graph > > info/commit-graph doesn't exist, but I have a 1-graph "chain" in > place. (And subsequent write --split calls write additional ones; I've > got a few now in this repository, but still no info/commit-graph.) > > git commit-graph verify seems happy: > .../objects$ git commit-graph verify > Verifying commits in commit graph: 100% (98768/98768), done. This workflow seems expected. > But git commit-graph read isn't: > .../objects$ git commit-graph read > fatal: Could not open commit-graph > '/path/to/repository/objects/info/commit-graph': No such file or > directory > > Running some tests with commands like git for-each-ref and git > rev-list shows that the "split" commit graph is being used (setting > core.commitGraph=false makes commands noticeably slower), so > functionally all seems well. But should git commit-graph read be > handling this better? Unfortunately, you're running into an issue because I designed the "read" subcommand poorly (and also forgot to update it for incremental commit-graph files). The biggest issue is that "read" is not really meant for end-users. It really should have been built as a test-tool. This point was corrected when I got around to writing the multi-pack-index since it uses "test-tool read-midx" instead of add. To fix this issue, I would probably go about it by removing the "read" subcommand and creating a "test-tool read-commit-graph" for the tests that need that output. If others on-list think that the better thing to do is to update the "read" subcommand to provide the same output, but iterate over each layer of an incremental commit-graph, then I can do that work instead. Thanks, -Stolee
