Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Another thing needs to be done for this to work. The current reading
>>
>> For *what* to work???
>
> The "forbid making our repository depend on objects we do not have but
> we know about afterwe peek submodule odb"

With your "when our object database is contaminated, check objects
we base our new object on are available in local or our alternates"
together with the "when we try write_object(), do not bypass it with
has_sha1_file() check because that may find the object in submodule odb
we should *not* have access to; instead check with the same 'local
or our alternates' test" I brought up in the message you were
responding to, I do not think object read order does not make a
difference to our effort to prevent the object database breakage due
to temporary contamination by submodule objects.

>>> Regardless the submodule odb issue, I think we should prefer
>>> reading local loose objects over alternate packed ones.

I suspect you are alluding to make write_object() check with
has_sha1_file_locally() so that we can wean our repository from
existing alternates, but I do not think it is a right approach
(instead, you just fully repack locally if you want to dissociate
yourself from your alternates).  What I was suggesting was to change
it to check with has_sha1_file_proper(), to make sure we do not omit
writing an object we need to access to, when we know it will vanish
once we stop temporarily borrowing from the submodule object store.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to