From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF8DC433DF for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3580F208FE for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:04:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="sFfDKSm6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404190AbgE1PEz (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 11:04:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:60574 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2403876AbgE1PEx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 11:04:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE03D224A; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:04:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=u0se9iNZbO9gXkO3Iaf0LwWL+0Y=; b=sFfDKS m6wfgz1vtKw/Vnk+qo22cOx2RGtVU6IpZg66J97dVopYfbsbBcO4BLycBGHi+AAN JNKaZcBzH39+DIlNgiYDci3lZJF/P++3V7C7NAjuDFQxVsKvrQzUaEGXfXy4FsEp H+kusKblYmy1tGJXePZpWILzp40hNTviEcZZA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NGZfbsR3D0PR2Qr1QFNO5GLB/1KFbUpy YIUSMMtsMn6fxj+cqOOvovArKWsTCGqXHWDcv906Kkl12d3nPjq33RLn/QK+3cUU wuT2y+/36WcWoV/tHcDS+uMVuYJyS1gc/JSURO38bvYmdVFGjw+DnTiQ6bPFEI3E wmf628fjcHE= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4768BD2249; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:04:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 851F2D2248; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:04:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Xin Li Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fetch: allow adding a filter after initial clone. References: <20200528025359.20931-2-delphij@google.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:04:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200528025359.20931-2-delphij@google.com> (Xin Li's message of "Wed, 27 May 2020 19:54:00 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 92EBBA90-A0F4-11EA-B75F-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Xin Li writes: > Instead of bailing out immediately when no promisor is available, make > the code check more specific issue (extension became special in > repository version 1, while it can have any value in version 0, so > upgrade should not happen if the repository have an unsupported > configuration that would render it invalid if we upgraded). It probably has to be a lot stronger than that. In version 0, extension did not have any meaning, so an existing repository can safely have "[extension] worktreeConfig=~/hello" as long as it is version 0 and nobody would bitch about extension.worktreeConfig not being a boolean; worse yet, "[extension] worktreeConfig=true" in version 0 repository did not make its secondary worktrees to have separate configuration, but if we upgrade to version 1 merely because the version of Git knows what extension.worktreeConfig means, we broke the repository and its worktrees. It would be safe to upgrade version 0 repository when there is *no* existing configuration variable in the "extension" section, but "the repository have an unsupported configuration" is not a useful or safe criteria to decide if we should refrain from upgrading, I would think.