Re: [PATCH v3] object-name: explain why <rev>~N fails in a shallow clone

["Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2026, at 11:06, Harald Nordgren wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 10:21 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Asking for a commit's ancestor with <rev>~N in a shallow clone that
>> > does not have N commits of history locally fails with a bare "is not
>> > a commit" error, with no indication that the repository being shallow
>> > is the reason, or what to do about it.
>> >[snip]
>>
>> We unfortunately haven't seen many folks interested in this change.
>> Is anybody interested in reviewing the patch to give it a push?
>>
>> Unless we see some volunteers to give it a review in a few weeks, I
>> will discard the topic out of my tree, as 'seen' has been crowded
>> with topics that have been collecting dust without getting many
>> reviews.
>
> Is it possible that maybe the review process needs to change if too
> many things are getting stuck?

The regular reviewers have been talking about review work being scarce
compared to contributions (contributor work) for at least several years
now. How can this be changed if there simply aren’t enough people to
review everything? And why does it *need* to be changed? The only
contributions that I know of that git(1) *needs* is full support for
the hash transition before Git 3.0.

> Rather than discarding acceptable work.

My work which has been stuck is also acceptable to me. ;) But my
opinions are beside the point wrt. an independent review.