Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > It is possible that we may drop an object that is depended > upon by another object in the alternate. For example, > imagine two repositories, A and B, with A pointing to B as > an alternate. Now imagine a commit that is in B which > references a tree that is only in A. Traversing from recent > objects in B might prevent A from dropping that tree. But > this case isn't worth covering. Repo B should take > responsibility for its own objects. It would never have had > the commit in the first place if it did not also have the > tree, and assuming it is using the same "keep recent chunks > of history" scheme, then it would itself keep the tree, as > well.
In other words, if you have a loop in dependency chain among alternate repositories, your set-up is broken by definition. Which makes sense to me. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
