Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:55:39AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> Does that seem reasonable?
>> >
>> > FWIW, I think that is the best direction. If anybody is depending on the
>> > "commit-graph write will complain about non-commits" behavior, they
>> > could only be doing so for a few versions; prior to v2.24.0 we did not.
>>
>> If we had it for the past 180 days or so, that's not like " people
>> have seen it for only a brief time", but working it around shouldn't
>> be too difficult---they need to validate the input they feed to the
>> command themselves (or do they need to do more?).
>
> Yeah, my point wasn't so much that it was brief as that we've had it
> both ways, and nobody was complaining about it before v2.24.0 (the
> type-restriction change came as a side effect of another tightening).
>
> But yeah, if somebody really wants that validation, they can do it
> themselves with "cat-file --batch-check". Or even for-each-ref directly:
>
> git for-each-ref --format='%(objectname) %(objecttype) %(*objecttype)' |
> awk '/commit/ { print $1 }' |
> git commit-graph write --stdin-commits
>
> If you're using --stdin-commits, you're presumably processing the input
> anyway (since otherwise you'd just be using --reachable).
>
> I suppose you could argue the other way, too (that the user could be
> filtering out non-commits). But so far we have one data point in either
> direction, and it wants the more forgiving behavior. :)
Yup. I agree that Taylor outlined the best direction going forward.
Thanks.
