From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: RFC: Allow missing objects during packing Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:44:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20080811224404.GQ26363@spearce.org> References: <20080811182839.GJ26363@spearce.org> <7vk5enuqfg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 12 00:45:16 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KSg8U-0007VV-MZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:45:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752736AbYHKWoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:44:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751826AbYHKWoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:44:07 -0400 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:52504 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751962AbYHKWoG (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:44:06 -0400 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CC5D638375; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vk5enuqfg.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" 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.