Re: Alternates and push
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:45:19
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 11:06:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
We could instead redefine the semantics of the existing alternates mechanism. This technically *breaks* backward compatibility, but I suspect it won't hurt many existing installations: - Declare that a freestanding object store is illegal. In other words, if a directory "$D/objects" is (1) used as $GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY's value, (2) pointed by some repository's "alternates" file, or (3) listed in $GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES's value, this change makes it illegal for "$D" not being a proper git repository. This will not break your example of your repository's object store borrowing from the object store inside Linus's repository. - When you have "$D/objects" in alternates, start relying on "$D/refs" being correct (i.e. repository $D is not corrupt). This technically makes the system slightly less robust, as we are depending on _other people's_ good behaviour even more when you use alternates, but you are already depending on them having good objects in $D/objects anyway, so it is not a big deal.
One way that wouldn't break backwards compatibility would be to use $D/refs if it exists, but if it isn't, fall back to existing behavior (which is to say, only use the refs in the repository, not in the borrowed repository/object store). Is there a reason why this would be problematic? - Ted