Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> THis makes it sound like the entire idea of this offending commit >> was wrong, and before it, the codepath that processed the packfile >> fetched from the packfile URI were using the index-pack correctly >> by using index-pack arguments that are independent from the one that >> is used to process the packfile given in-stream. Why isn't the fix >> just a straight revert of the commit??? > > By the way, the band-aid in this patch may be OK for the upcoming > release (purely because it is easy to see that is sufficient for > today's codebase), but I said the above because I worry about the > health of the codebase in the longer term. The "pass_header" may > not stay to be the only difference between the URI packfile and > in-stream packfile in the way they make index-pack invocations. For example, the URI one presumably is a CDN hosted long term one, which may be a good candidate to --keep, and in-stream one, especially when packfile URI feature is used, can be expected to be recent small leftover bits that it is likely that we do not want to keep (in fact, if they are small enough, we'd prefer to keep them loose).
