Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
>
>> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
>>
>> When `git fetch --update-shallow` needs to test for commit ancestry, it
>> can naturally run into a missing object (e.g. if it is a parent of a
>> shallow commit). For the purpose of `--update-shallow`, this needs to be
>> treated as if the child commit did not even have that parent, i.e. the
>> commit history needs to be clamped.
>>
>> For all other scenarios, clamping the commit history is actually a bug,
>> as it would hide repository corruption (for an analysis regarding
>> shallow and partial clones, see the analysis further down).
>>
>> Add a flag to optionally ask the function to ignore missing commits, as
>> `--update-shallow` needs it to, while detecting missing objects as a
>> repository corruption error by default.
>>
>> This flag is needed, and cannot replaced by `is_repository_shallow()` to
>> indicate that situation, because that function would return 0 in the
>> `--update-shallow` scenario: There is not actually a `shallow` file in
>> that scenario, as demonstrated e.g. by t5537.10 ("add new shallow root
>> with receive.updateshallow on") and t5538.4 ("add new shallow root with
>> receive.updateshallow on").
>
> Nicely written.
>
> The description above that has been totally revamped reads much much
> clearer, at least to me, compared to the previous round.
>
> Should we declare the topic done and mark it for 'next'?
>
> Thanks.
I agree that this text reads much clearer -- even to me with close to
zero experience, here.
Thank you for taking the time to rewrite the text, Johannes.
Dirk
