Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2024, #03; Mon, 4)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * jt/repack-local-promisor (2024-11-03) 5 commits
>  - fixup! index-pack: repack local links into promisor packs
>  - index-pack: repack local links into promisor packs
>  - t5300: move --window clamp test next to unclamped
>  - t0410: use from-scratch server
>  - t0410: make test description clearer
> 
>  "git gc" discards any objects that are outside promisor packs that
>  are referred to by an object in a promisor pack, and we do not
>  refetch them from the promisor at runtime, resulting an unusable
>  repository.  Work it around by including these objects in the
>  referring promisor pack at the receiving end of the fetch.
> 
>  Needs review.
>  Breaks CI (with a known fix).
>  source: <cover.1730491845.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>

The fixup (in your tree) looks good.

As for review, for what it's worth, Josh Steadmon has written some
comments [1], which I've addressed. Regarding the big-picture issue
as to whether this solution is the best one for the problem we have,
both Han Young [2] and I have verified (with private repos) that this
solution does not have noticeable performance issues (which was a
concern with other solutions) and I think that this solution does well
to preserve the concept that we know which objects are re-fetchable from
the remote (even if we have created them locally) and which are not.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/radxsrv6sjemdzl2mw5zzkieyim6xfikrevwggjmzi774g2sob@4nx7fwcjfk32/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAG1j3zGiNMbri8rZNaF0w+yP+6OdMz0T8+8_Wgd1R_p1HzVasg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

> * jt/commit-graph-missing (2024-11-04) 3 commits
>  - SQUASH???
>  - fetch-pack: warn if in commit graph but not obj db
>  - Revert "fetch-pack: add a deref_without_lazy_fetch_extended()"
> 
>  A regression where commit objects missing from a commit-graph can
>  cause an infinite loop when doing a fetch in a partial clone has
>  been fixed.
> 
>  Waiting an ack for CI breakage fix and possibly a reroll.
>  source: <cover.1730409376.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>

Through reading this I've realized that the "warn if" should be "die
if", so I've made a reroll [3].

[3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1730833754.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux