From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
PJ Hyett <pjhyett@gmail.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:41:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vvdrzvpwd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vd4e7x5ov.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:14:56 -0800")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Here is my work in progress. It introduces "ignore-missing-negative"
> option to the revision traversal machinery, and squelches the places we
> currently complain loudly and die when we expect an object to be
> available, when the color we are going to paint the object with is
> UNINTERESTING.
>
> I have a mild suspicion that it may even be the right thing to ignore them
> unconditionally, and it might even match the intention of Linus's original
> code. That would make many hunks in this patch much simpler.
>
> The evidences behind this suspicion are found in a handful of places in
> revision.c. mark_blob_uninteresting() does not complain if the caller
> fails to find the blob. mark_tree_uninteresting() does not, either.
> mark_parents_uninteresting() does not, either, and it even has a comment
> that strongly suggests the original intention was not to care about
> missing UNINTERESTING objects.
Here is what I ended up with doing. It lost "ignore-missing-negative"
so missing UNINTERESTING objects are non-error events more uniformly,
but on the other hand get_reference() which is about the command line
arguments always wants the named objects to exist, even if they are
marked as UNINTERESTING.
I'll send [PATCH 1/2] which is an update to my previous fix as a follow-up
to this message.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] revision traversal: allow UNINTERESTING objects to be missing
Most of the existing codepaths were meant to treat missing uninteresting
objects to be a silently ignored non-error, but there were a few places
in handle_commit() and add_parents_to_list(), which are two key functions
in the revision traversal machinery, that cared:
- When a tag refers to an object that we do not have, we barfed. We
ignore such a tag if it is painted as UNINTERESTING with this change.
- When digging deeper into the ancestry chain of a commit that is already
painted as UNINTERESTING, in order to paint its parents UNINTERESTING,
we barfed if parse_parent() for a parent commit object failed. We can
ignore such a parent commit object.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
revision.c | 7 +++++--
t/t5519-push-alternates.sh | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index db60f06..ea8ba0f 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -183,8 +183,11 @@ static struct commit *handle_commit(struct rev_info *revs, struct object *object
if (!tag->tagged)
die("bad tag");
object = parse_object(tag->tagged->sha1);
- if (!object)
+ if (!object) {
+ if (flags & UNINTERESTING)
+ return NULL;
die("bad object %s", sha1_to_hex(tag->tagged->sha1));
+ }
}
/*
@@ -480,7 +483,7 @@ static int add_parents_to_list(struct rev_info *revs, struct commit *commit,
struct commit *p = parent->item;
parent = parent->next;
if (parse_commit(p) < 0)
- return -1;
+ continue;
p->object.flags |= UNINTERESTING;
if (p->parents)
mark_parents_uninteresting(p);
diff --git a/t/t5519-push-alternates.sh b/t/t5519-push-alternates.sh
index 6dfc55a..96be523 100755
--- a/t/t5519-push-alternates.sh
+++ b/t/t5519-push-alternates.sh
@@ -103,4 +103,41 @@ test_expect_success 'bob works and pushes' '
)
'
+test_expect_success 'alice works and pushes yet again' '
+ (
+ # Alice does not care what Bob does. She does not
+ # even have to be aware of his existence. She just
+ # keeps working and pushing
+ cd alice-work &&
+ echo more and more alice >file &&
+ git commit -a -m sixth.1 &&
+ echo more and more alice >>file &&
+ git commit -a -m sixth.2 &&
+ echo more and more alice >>file &&
+ git commit -a -m sixth.3 &&
+ git push ../alice-pub
+ )
+'
+
+test_expect_success 'bob works and pushes again' '
+ (
+ cd alice-pub &&
+ git cat-file commit master >../bob-work/commit
+ )
+ (
+ # This time Bob does not pull from Alice, and
+ # the master branch at her public repository points
+ # at a commit Bob does not fully know about, but
+ # he happens to have the commit object (but not the
+ # necessary tree) in his repository from Alice.
+ # This should not prevent the push by Bob from
+ # succeeding.
+ cd bob-work &&
+ git hash-object -t commit -w commit &&
+ echo even more bob >file &&
+ git commit -a -m seventh &&
+ git push ../bob-pub
+ )
+'
+
test_done
--
1.6.1.1.273.g0e555
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-27 23:04 Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 PJ Hyett
2009-01-27 23:10 ` PJ Hyett
2009-01-27 23:37 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-01-27 23:39 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-27 23:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 0:15 ` PJ Hyett
2009-01-28 0:34 ` PJ Hyett
2009-01-28 1:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 1:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 1:38 ` [PATCH] send-pack: Filter unknown commits from alternates of the remote Björn Steinbrink
2009-01-28 1:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 3:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 3:58 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-01-28 4:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 4:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 1:44 ` Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 1:57 ` PJ Hyett
2009-01-28 2:02 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 3:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 3:30 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 3:52 ` Stephen Bannasch
2009-01-28 3:57 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 5:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 4:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 4:41 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 7:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 7:41 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2009-01-28 7:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] send-pack: do not send unknown object name from ".have" to pack-objects Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 15:45 ` Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 Linus Torvalds
2009-01-28 19:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 7:55 ` Jeff King
2009-01-28 8:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 8:17 ` Jeff King
2009-01-28 16:16 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 18:16 ` Jeff King
2009-01-28 18:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 8:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-01-28 9:24 ` Jeff King
2009-01-28 16:09 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-01-28 16:38 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-01-28 18:11 ` Jeff King
2009-01-28 1:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-28 1:15 ` Björn Steinbrink
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vvdrzvpwd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pjhyett@gmail.com \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).