Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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). Thanks. >> > 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. No, that is not what I meant. "If you arrange your test so that all three have the same tree, then would't the reason why such a test would not work you cited disappear and make this fix testable?" is what I wanted to ask.
