On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > It is possible that we may drop an object that is depended > > upon by another object in the alternate. For example, > > imagine two repositories, A and B, with A pointing to B as > > an alternate. Now imagine a commit that is in B which > > references a tree that is only in A. Traversing from recent > > objects in B might prevent A from dropping that tree. But > > this case isn't worth covering. Repo B should take > > responsibility for its own objects. It would never have had > > the commit in the first place if it did not also have the > > tree, and assuming it is using the same "keep recent chunks > > of history" scheme, then it would itself keep the tree, as > > well. > > In other words, if you have a loop in dependency chain among > alternate repositories, your set-up is broken by definition. > > Which makes sense to me. > > Thanks.
I don't see this patch in "pu" or "What's Cooking" at all. Did it get dropped? It does fix a performance regression, but the problem is in v2.2, so I don't think it's urgent for v2.4-rc. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
