Re: [PATCH 6/7] rev-list: let traversal die when --missing is not in use

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] rev-list: let traversal die when --missing is not in use
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 09:41:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190407134113.GA13417@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190406053648.GD37216@Taylors-MBP.hsd1.wa.comcast.net>

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. 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.

-Peff