Hi Junio,
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "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
Hrmpf. I just spotted the missing "be" between "cannot" and "replaced".
Junio, would you kindly amend the commit message accordingly?
> > 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.
Thank you!
> Should we declare the topic done and mark it for 'next'?
After you looked over the correctness of the patches, I would be
comfortable with that.
Thanks!
Johannes
