On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:09:35AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > I.e. now we make the implicit assumption that an OID we see in the > advertisement is one the server isn't going to aggressively prune while > our push is underday (Jeff King has a good E-Mail summarizing that > somewhere, not digging it up now, but I could...). > > So such a remote will negotiate with us using that OID, but unlike with > advertised OIDs we can't safely assume that the OID won't be racily > deleted during our negotiation. I haven't been following the push-negotiation stuff closely, nor do I have a specific email in mind that summarizes this. So take my input with a grain of salt. But... Wouldn't this also be a problem for multi-round fetch negotiation? An object may become unreachable or even go away entirely during the course of a fetch. I'd expect that to be rare, but when it does happen, for the fetch to end up barfing (the server says "hey, I don't know about that object"). -Peff
