archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Derrick Stolee <>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <>, Jeff King <>
Cc: Jeff Hostetler <>,
	Jonathan Tan <>,
	Patrick Steinhardt <>, Taylor Blau <>,
	Git Users <>,
	"brian m . carlson" <>
Subject: Re: "bad revision" fetch error when fetching missing objects from partial clones
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:04:10 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 5/18/2021 6:14 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 18/05/21 15.11, Jeff King wrote:
>> In practice I think it's an unlikely failure mode for a server you
>> partial-cloned from to turn off filters, so it's probably not that
>> important. I hit it because a test script used test_config to enable
>> them, and then the follow-on test I added to run git-fetch got quite
>> confused. A more likely scenario is that you might see it a
>> misconfigured load-balanced pool of servers.
>> I do wonder how hitting a third-party server should work, though. E.g.,
>> I partial clone from A, and then ask B to fetch some related history
>> built on top. Do I tell B that I'm a partial clone and might be missing
>> some objects? Or do I behave as normal, and expect to fault in objects
>> that it assumes I have (e.g., a delta base)? And if the latter, does
>> that work (if it does, then why doesn't the same logic kick in for this
>> fetch?).
> My server is running Gitea (compiled from main branch [1]). The server
> itself runs Git 2.31.1. I can also reproduce the issue using Jeff's
> test case [2] without Gitea. So this is not Gitea's issue, this is Git's
> issue.
> Even my server setup is just application server + separate database
> server and not load-balanced pool ones.

I think the "third party" thing is mostly about if we have forks
hosted in different places. Imagine that git/git is hosted on
GitHub with partial clone enabled, but git-for-windows/git was
hosted on Azure Repos, which doesn't have partial clone.

What happens when we partial clone git/git from GitHub, but then
add git-for-windows/git as a remote and fetch from it?

This is a separate discussion. I think it really points out the
issues that arise because partial clone makes the remote a more
critical resource. This removes some decentralization from Git,
as requested by the user. These concerns about the remote changing
the availability of filters or about other remotes hosted
elsewhere are unlikely to come up in a centralized workflow (i.e.
a set of users working against a common remote without forks).


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-18 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-07 12:56 Bagas Sanjaya
2021-05-11 18:44 ` Jeff Hostetler
2021-05-13  9:57   ` Jeff King
2021-05-13 10:53     ` Jeff King
2021-05-14  7:27       ` Jeff King
2021-05-17  6:03         ` Patrick Steinhardt
2021-05-17  6:31           ` Jeff King
2021-05-17 16:25         ` Derrick Stolee
2021-05-18  8:11           ` Jeff King
2021-05-18 10:14             ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-05-18 14:04               ` Derrick Stolee [this message]
2021-05-15  6:52     ` Bagas Sanjaya

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: "bad revision" fetch error when fetching missing objects from partial clones' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).