Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The fix slows down a fetch from a certain repo at > > $DAYJOB from 2m2.127s to 2m45.052s, but in order to make the fetch > > correct, it seems worth it. > > And "the fix" is not described so a reader is left wondering. Is > the fix for an oversight of not checking merely to check it? IOW, > is > > c08589efdc made outgoing links to be checked for commits, but > failed to do so for trees. Make sure we check both > > what is happening? Yes. I was trying to keep to the character limit and in doing so, made the commit message title hard to understand. I think the new title should be easier to understand (and also stated explicitly in the commit message what is being taught to Git). > > However, it is also possible for > > the server to compute that it needs to send S and not O, and proceed > > from there; > > If O, C, and S have all identical trees, then wouldn't such a test > work well? At that point it does not matter which between O and C > the server bases its decision to send S but not S's tree on, no? > > In any case, will queue. Thanks. O has a different tree from C and S. I will add a note to clarify this.
