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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8D8EB64DA for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229908AbjGHIvn (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2023 04:51:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40414 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbjGHIvm (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2023 04:51:42 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81ACF123 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2023 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-570540d9777so2840587b3.1 for ; Sat, 08 Jul 2023 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1688806300; x=1691398300; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:subject:cc:to:from :user-agent:references:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GAGKkV3PdAJL83q6SWTDajpfI17piqy+dPgD6lNuEfQ=; b=e90aKa7HxkHP7/TzH46Xdil1yzVbiT4WgtVMiX8GW8NweGJNO+3xIun/6KvJsLR6Kt VzWWUdcBFSwnfeurwVTc6AWeqV7qIDQiyCkQZ0whFEIpPsa8P5hMUES7DxzdSZRJ0qio vm7RmdcjxMqtGXpSTet9vo+kph6WwZjiEvlEosiFCOPh4mXmGnGFbBuBInfGDp0IcJeW zrZfJcO0SXvqaIEpQuElIt/ZPr9skV4+HMnGokDp9BuSN4pEXtDoqAEy+Rt4dYQh13bS h75wBo/0PDAGg8ZDe+CPPLo1VJGJDa+x178zxR8jG0/qJZLDhwNE8l7U6smVOFrVL5aH Yhew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688806300; x=1691398300; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:date:subject:cc:to:from :user-agent:references:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=GAGKkV3PdAJL83q6SWTDajpfI17piqy+dPgD6lNuEfQ=; b=NIci7xTXcf//HYbS/LSSHVl5mfu4WKZ8EasbUeWCCOwpIhvrFyqcrkYjDXJcWyOpqK FQa+0kK9w9WehvdXli1D8ZfntSd9MK2soZEm6IQatC3KZLTu2cFHxJ6hb9G633ZJPOJX p+IqdTab6jgfBGW172w3aFdXdSOlk60KUqtsmvB/G+MghFhCbc4cArr4YbTB54QrPFYb dlmpgishK99onkJBRQp+XqP78rIiJlrpl1gvpGA+7bcFmRMFuxeA/9D1orJeoWN1GhEz b7ZZGGhBk6ZBeOTWq0xnHmMykiWlijbuQAmulPP0Lj8IkSzlz/bP+BQ8pze5SxzUYEXp po8A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLaNCRL3/N+sOvLPmDwZumS6QgPM+nqJ8Jo/AHfoj7DUkmLmQUaa FjaIDSXysfu9aTE8igjCdG3vS0W3cvY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlGZ7LC8zSyCC5LL+tntMNdfiXKmnDly5AexS2Bl2foBl1m2/d0mFDsEpcV0JlX0bO3Pvog8DQ== X-Received: by 2002:a25:fa12:0:b0:c4d:7a05:8db5 with SMTP id b18-20020a25fa12000000b00c4d7a058db5mr3103770ybe.5.1688806300374; Sat, 08 Jul 2023 01:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from epic96565.epic.com ([2620:72:0:6480::12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f3-20020a25b083000000b00c6051b16f8bsm1496834ybj.8.2023.07.08.01.51.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 08 Jul 2023 01:51:40 -0700 (PDT) References: User-agent: mu4e 1.11.1; emacs 29.0.91 From: Sean Allred To: Sean Allred Cc: Tao Klerks , "brian m. carlson" , Sean Allred , Kyle VandeWalle , git Subject: Re: [BUGREPORT] Why is git-push fetching content? Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2023 03:39:19 -0500 In-reply-to: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Following up with the results of my bisect (more discussion below). I'm forced to conclude this may somehow have never worked as I'm expecting (even though I do recall it working well in a long-gone environment), but I'm very much hoping I just did the bisect incorrectly. (It's not a feature I need to use much.) So, is this a bug or is this working as intended for a good reason? Sean Allred writes: > Thanks for the replies. I'd like to bump this up again. This has come up > in a new context and I don't see a viable workaround for us that doesn't > involve a rewrite of the process and an excessive amount of new > infrastructure. > > I have a feeling this is somehow a general issue with promisor remotes, > though I don't know enough about how they work to know where to start > investigation. I've got what I believe to be minimal reproduction steps > below. > > [...] > > I believe the following can be used with git-bisect to determine if this > truly ever worked or is a regression: > > setup: > #!/bin/bash > > repo="https://github.com/vermiculus/testibus.git" > repo_dir="~/path/to/repo" > > git clone --no-checkout --depth=1 --no-tags --filter=tree:0 "$repo" "$repo_dir" > git -C "$repo_dir" remote set-url origin unreachable > > bisect script: > git -C "$repo_dir" rev-list --objects --all > > (obviously using the just-built git) > > I'm going to start running this bisect, but I suspect it will take a > while, so I wanted to get this out there. I ended up using a bisect script that looks like this #!/bin/bash make clean NO_GETTEXT=1 make -j8 || exit 125 ./bin-wrappers/git -C "$1" rev-list --objects --all || exit 1 git rev-parse HEAD >> ../good-commits and running git bisect start main 637fc4467e57872008171958eda0428818a7ee03 git bisect run ../bisect-script.sh ~/tmp/testibus/ It took less time than I thought, but unfortunately I was never able to actually find a 'good' commit. I arbitrarily chose "partial-clone: design doc" (Jeff Hostetler, Dec 14 2017) as the first commit to the partial-clone design document (under the assumption that it worked at some point). If potentially lying to git-bisect in this way is especially liable to bust it, I can start the exponentially-more- expensive process of testing every commit along --first-parent, but I suspect this may have never worked as I'm expecting. -- Sean Allred