Re: Users of git-check-files?

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen 
anything like that, and I push all the time..

I have been esuspecting that it happens only because I rewind
and rebase "pu", which you never do.  The thing is, even though
I rewind "pu" all the time, it happens only occasionally.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen 
anything like that, and I push all the time..

I have been esuspecting that it happens only because I rewind
and rebase "pu", which you never do.  The thing is, even though
I rewind "pu" all the time, it happens only occasionally.

Oh, that would do it. 

You need to prune back the remote tree you send to, so that it is a real
subset of what you are sending from (at least as far as the branch you
send is concerned - other branches may be ahead of you, of course). Unlike
"git-fetch-pack", the send-pack interface does not do any common commit
discovery, so if you have state on the other end that isn't on your local
end, that's setting yourself up for problems: you are basically misusing
the interfaces.

I started out to make the "-f" flag to send-file work around it, but I
never finished that, partly because it really ends up being the same thing
as "git-fetch-pack" in reverse, which was against the whole point of
git-send-pack. Send-pack is meant to be an "update remote tree" thing, 
with the assumption that the remote tree is a subset - and exactly that 
assumption is what makes send-pack much cheaper than fetch-pack.

(Actually, to me it's not the "cheaper" that matters, but exactly the fact
that send-pack is so safe - if somebody has changed something at the other 
end that I don't have in mine, I _want_ errors, because that would be a 
serious problem).

		Linus