From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: warning: no common commits - slow pull Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:54:53 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhcg71n9u.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <200802102007.38838.lenb@kernel.org> <7vd4r4clnb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Len Brown , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 17 18:56:08 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 1JQnk3-0001tN-74 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:55:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752891AbYBQRzT (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:55:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752324AbYBQRzT (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:55:19 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:53396 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752100AbYBQRzR (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:55:17 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADC661CE; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C124261CA; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:55:05 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:57:15 +0000 (GMT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > >> I wonder if the problem is that something isn't getting reinitialized >> for the second connection. It's not a separate invocation of fetch-pack, >> and I can't say for sure that it's sending the right info to the server >> when the statics in builtin-fetch-pack.c are left over from the earlier >> call. This would particularly explain the information that hitting >> ctrl-c and trying again fixes it. > > Oh, that should be it! After all, the code in get_rev() in > builtin-fetch-pack.c marks commits as SEEN and COMMON and POPPED. I seem to be slow today, but how does that explain that the problem is reported only by Len so far?