From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1AE25C71E for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 17:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741021944; cv=none; b=BWgnw7Wk9IDzBP0Pzn34cP1NkeSB+OHEcFQ2yhZ9ezd4Sm7dWfrmPA70NiXl1Bp0iaErfGjWllOB4XfsbCZ4Ap4HdkIAJSWDpvMJCOHss5FFsk0OtuFRMPe67Fmu4UcHCIPINWs3rish4gVeXtAaFlLKecykQ9hGI6nV5acHUMg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741021944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=t9zWNJzp4gvvwxfqFcFiM0BWltnjQXai7dOtNu6Culc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sS+1f77WNfwvfC8xdVHb52oG4HUKz/B4zy+biSdooEvOt1PCCJRL1nvtSGHCon1U2xpfENCHwBh4jqPsSYzKppJYlZXNy0bhEoNL0YxBozUxB79+wONNMkBri7lSxrA3CbGQr6Z5uPqCrHsUL2s/M5YB9fLACAiLMkL8W1R+8Kw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Y1Uva2w0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=cT6V/i5B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.152 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Y1Uva2w0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="cT6V/i5B" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.phl.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0F42540170; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:12:21 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1741021941; x=1741108341; bh=hUtYiB8/HV+IwQnqkyFw97VKHhREtkhzmlSBNzp5018=; b= Y1Uva2w0wpC8vyAjwTA3T/JkKlqj+5CH9axfMSb6fSTvKvO8m+kcFdyPTd6qqyRc KJ6S/6QnyPulW3xGcgKPO5+pEEyj4abLsRPFw0yv+oIlz7XXC/n/jCoCYvRug59F OBUWlgOMh/NmrK1pahr4ss3mvMfzUDm7FPRzx5jF+eubNHjaDc49/7FdphLQCqaG zcR75LzXXoXVGJoiszQxoPSeIngS+BEck5BBDaYJXnYs+m2isZaTdWk4wv8Ui2FI Jmorkr3AeoUKVByxBgRmrSQ7zPpEQU7N2Ey/JsQPTkam5oqo1DnLgjNsjn11zhyP AzizFWAqi8zYpUCRK4A2hw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1741021941; x= 1741108341; bh=hUtYiB8/HV+IwQnqkyFw97VKHhREtkhzmlSBNzp5018=; b=c T6V/i5B6B6wnL8Wvwe+mEV/PsmKkqrN28ARFeGYfpHvJty/7OrlsSwyp+mPpTPHi w0Bas6WVVhyOnLc/cUVjmY1XE2MDN9UVERBMJOMMhBXUcTtpmKjenurBqmumRfGC uj1K1qmP3zVIV4lEgTMAwoYTxXQIy+a6CeANKSsQST9WeYektNU06sC/DqNbe13a U86n1DuxaDcuVO6Ycbb7ymU3fDSgRfwO2d4hSWfkwD7J7XdsVvmV2jKm9fF6bja3 iY2aRNsrfnnrIEGrVb9R/gNivWnq5cBqwEXPe8X+wZ2qMAqEc1c3GDVaiky6+LJu ex8kXgF/pJUX07GcGZyJg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgdelleeilecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtgfesthekredttder jeenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdffvdetgedvtdekteefveeuveelgfek feehiefgheevhedvkeehleevveeftdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepshgthhgrtghonh esghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsthholhgvvgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdp rhgtphhtthhopehgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtth hopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgv rhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:12:20 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Scott Chacon Cc: Derrick Stolee , Scott Chacon via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bundle-uri: copy all bundle references ino the refs/bundle space In-Reply-To: (Scott Chacon's message of "Sat, 1 Mar 2025 11:23:08 +0100") References: <3a180cca-0573-474a-8835-8015dbe09541@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 09:12:19 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Scott Chacon writes: > Hey, > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:36 AM Derrick Stolee wrote: >> >> The intention of the design is to avoid having the bundle URI fetch >> changing tag refs, especially annotated tags. Those tag updates are >> expected to be advertised in the "git fetch" output. It would probably >> be best to peel the tag refs to a commit and then create a fake branch >> for the bundle. I am not sure where that need to avoid including tags comes from. >> The biggest question I had (and tried to get ahead of on the PR) is >> the use of a test to demonstrate what kind of bundle files cause this >> issue. It would be important to demosntrate that the repo is still >> usable if "refs/bundles/tags/v1.0" exists and points to a tag object. > > I have written a test and I'll submit the new series in a minute, but > I'm not sure what you mean by 'usable' in this context. Is there a > situation where Git gets mad if there are annotated tags that aren't > under refs/tags? I do not know of any at least for a local consumption of these tags. > I have done these test clones and nothing bad seems to happen having > them in refs/bundle/tags/v1.0 that I notice, but I don't know how to > write a test that specifically verifies that. Can it be some brittleness Derrick is worried about auto-following of tags during future "git fetch"? You store a tag that a regular fetch may want to store at refs/tags/v1.0 in refs/bundles/tags/v1.0 taken from the bundle, and then a later fetch may advance the history based on you extracted from the bundle---without having to run an explicit "git fetch --tags" or "git fetch origin v1.0", would we ever obtain "refs/tags/v1.0" with only the usual auto-following when we have the same tag elsewhere? In any case, instead of me speculating, I'd prefer to hear from Derrick, who is a lot more familiar with the mechanism under discussion, what the issues are that we want to limit ourselves to local branches. Thanks.