Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fsck for lazy objects, and (now) actual invocation of loader

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> If we are deeply worried about this kind of broken connectivity, there
> is another case to care about: the server can "promise" to serve
> requests for some object (e.g., the tree pointed to by the server's
> "master") and then decide it does not want to fulfill that promise
> (e.g., that tree pointed to private key material and "master" was
> rewound to avoid it).  

I think I've already covered that in my message (i.e. "we need to
assume more than the normal Git").  In short, it is not our problem,
but the "lazy-object" service's problem.  If developers cannot trust
the "central server", most likely owned by the organization that
employs them and forces them to offload the access to these objects
to the "central server", I think there is much larger problem there.

> In the promises model, how we do we get a fresh
> understanding of what the server wants to promise now?

Yes, that is one of the things that needs to be designed if we want
to officially support lazy-objects like structure.  We need a way to
incrementally adjust the cut-off point, below which it is the
responsibility of the "other side" to ensure that necessary objects
are available (on demand), and above which it is a local
repository's responsibility to notice corrupted and/or missing
objects.