Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > ... It seems pretty harmless to allow an object we > > aren't going to transmit but that we want to use as a delta base > > in a thin pack to be missing. At worst we just get a little bit > > more data transfer. > > If the check is only about a thin delta base that is not going to be > transmit, I'd agree. But I do not see how you are distinguishing that > case and the case where an object you are actually sending is missing (in > which case we would want to error out, wouldn't we?) Arrgh. Good catch. My patch is flawed in that it does not correctly fail if we really needed the missing object in this output pack. I don't think that would be hard to fix. I'll respin something shortly. -- Shawn. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
