Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Repository S borrows from its "promisor" X, and repository C which >> initially cloned from S borrows from its "promisor" S. Even if C >> wants an object in order to fill in the gap in its object graph, S >> may not have it (and S itself may have no need for that object), and >> in such a case, bypassing S and let C go directly to X would make >> sense. > ... >> >> It feels utterly irresponsible to give an option to set up a server >> that essentially declares: I'll serve objects you ask me as best >> efforts basis, the pack stream I'll give you may not have all >> objects you asked for and missing some objects, and when I do so, I >> am not telling you which objects I omitted. > > I don't think it's irresponsible. The client anyways checks that it > got something usable in the same way as it does when it performs a > partial fetch or clone. The fetch or clone fails if that's not the > case. For example if the checkout part of a clone needs some objects > but cannot get them, the whole clone fails. But then what can the repository C do after seeing such a failure? With the design, S does not even consult C to see if C knows about X. Without knowing that, it cannot safely decide that it does not have to send objects that can be obtained from X to C. Instead, S simply say "if C requests an object that I do not have, just ignore it and let C grab it from somewhere else". How would it not be an irresponsible design?
