Re: [PATCH 6/7] rev-list: let traversal die when --missing is not in use
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 19:11:38 -0700
- From: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] rev-list: let traversal die when --missing is not in use
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 09:41:13AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 10:36:48PM -0700, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > > > Of those, I think (3) is probably the best path forward. However, this
> > > > patch does none of them. In the name of expediently fixing the
> > > > regression to a normal "rev-list --objects" that we use for connectivity
> > > > checks, this simply restores the pre-7c0fe330d5 behavior of having the
> > > > traversal die as soon as it fails to load a tree (when --missing is set
> > > > to MA_ERROR, which is the default).
> > >
> > > I think this is worth doing, as it restores the earlier behavior. But a
> > > few general thoughts (which I've shared already with you, but for the
> > > benefit of the list):
> > I agree that it's worth doing. One question that I have is _when_ you
> > feel it's good to do. I'm happy to write it and include the change in
> > v2, but if others would be happy not to grow the series too much between
> > re-rolls, I'd be just as pleased to send it in a new series after this
> > one.
> I'm not sure what "it" is here.
Yes... as I read this email again after the weekend had passed, I found
myself a little confused, too.
> My earlier message was admittedly rambling, but I think I'm arguing
> that it's OK to continue to include this patch that you already have,
> and punt further changes to make "rev-list --objects" detect blob
> problems down the road. I.e., leave the two expect_failures in place
> that your v1 series ends with.
I believe that that was the "it" that I was talking about it. To be
explicit, I think I was suggesting that we should not change this patch
much or add more to the series, and rather address the blob checking in
a new series after this one.