Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes: >> [object] >> missingObjectRemote = local-cache-remote >> missingObjectRemote = origin >> > In the presence of missingObjectRemote, old versions of Git, when lazily > fetching, would only know to try the extensions.partialClone remote. But > this is safe because existing data wouldn't be clobbered (since we're > not using ideas like adding meaning to the contents of the .promisor > file). Also, other things like fsck and gc still work.
It is a good idea to implicitly include the promisor-remote to the set of secondary places to consult to help existing versions of Git, but once the repository starts fetching incomplete subgraphs and adding new object.missingobjectremote [*1*], these versions of Git will stop working correctly, so I am not sure if it is all that useful approach for compatibility in practice. [Footnote] *1* That name with two "object" in it sounds horrible. I think the same keyname in 'core' section may sit better (this feature sounds more 'core' than other cruft that crept into 'core' section over time). Or "odb.remoteAlternate" (as opposed to object/info/alternates that are local alternates), perhaps.
