On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 5:57 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Packing local objects into promisor packfiles means that it is no longer > > possible to detect if an object is missing due to repository corruption > > or because we need to fetch it from a promisor remote. > > Is it true that without doing this, we can tell between these two > cases, though? More importantly, even if it is true, would there be > a practical difference? > > In the sample scenario used in [1/3] where you created C2/T2/B2 on > top of C1/T1/B1 (which came from a promisor remote), somebody else > built C3/T3/B3 on top, and it came back from the promisor remote, > you could lose 3's objects and 1's objects and they can be refetched > but even if you lose 2's objects, since 3's objects are building on > top of them, you should be able to fetch them from the promisor > remote just like objects from 1 and 3, no? So strictly speaking, > missing 2's objects may be "repository corruption" while missing 1's > and 3's objects may not be, would there be a practical use for that > information? Some code path does check if the missing object is promisor object before lazy fetching, `--missing=` does this check. But in that case, C2 is also a promisor object, the check would pass. There are no partial clone filter that omits commits, missing commit will always result in error. And even if we do report "repository corruption", the best course of action is still try to fetching them. So, no. I don't think there are practical uses for that information > These patches are based on the tip of master before 365529e1 (Merge > branch 'ps/leakfixes-part-7', 2024-10-02), which will give mildly > annoying conflicts when merged to 'seen'. > > I've managed to apply and then merge, so unless review discussions > find needs for updates, there is no need for immediate reroll, but > if you end up having to update these patches, it is a good idea to > rebase the topic on top of v2.47.0 that was released early this > week, as we are now entering a new development cycle. Thanks, I will rebase to master and see if any other tests break.
