On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:57 AM Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:27 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > When such a command is used to find the dependencies of some objects, > >> > for example the dependencies of quarantined objects, it would be > >> > better if the command would instead consider such missing objects, > >> > especially commits, in the same way as other missing objects. > >> > > >> > If, for example `--missing=print` is used, it would be nice for some > >> > use cases if the missing tips passed as arguments were reported in > >> > the same way as other missing objects instead of the command just > >> > failing. > >> > > >> > Let's introduce a new `--allow-missing-tips` option to make it work > >> > like this. > >> > >> An obvious question is if this even needs to be a new option. What > >> are expected use cases where --missing=print without this option is > >> beneficial? > > > > I am not sure if such a case is really beneficial but some > > people/script/forges might rely on an error from `git rev-list > > --missing=print` to propagate back an error to some user interface. > > I currently learn toward just making the new flag's behavior be absorved > into the existing "--missing=..." flag. Ok, then I am going to implement that in the next version I will send. > Nevertheless, you raise an > interesting concern. > > Perhaps a compromise would be to make "--missing=..." learn the new > behavior of this patch as Junio suggested, but to introduce a new flag, > something like "--fail-on-missing-tips" to fail early if any of the tip > commits' objects are missing? That way we could keep the current > "strict" behavior of complaining if we feed rev-list any tips whose > objects are missing. And for the vast majority of cases the > "--missing=..." flag could (intuitively) gracefully handle tips with > missing objects and you wouldn't have to pass in the additional flag. > > IOW, make the minority (certainly not majority, I think?) of users who > really need the error propagation use the (new) extra flag, while the > rest of us (including the version of you who was surprised by the > limited behavior of "--missing=...", enough to write this series) don't > have to. I agree that the majority of users would prefer `git rev-list` with "--missing=<arg>" (when <arg> is not "error") not to error out when one of the tips is missing. And yeah, indeed at GitLab, we are among this majority of users. I was worried about a small minority relying on the fact that it would error out in such case. But maybe we don't need to care unless it appears that this minority actually exists.
