Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

But in other cases, it silently gives you the wrong answer.  For
example, consider a history like:

       C--D
      /
  A--B
      \
       E--F

now let's suppose I have everything except 'E'. If I ask for

  git rev-list F..D

then it will not realize that A and B are uninteresting, and I will get
A-B-C-D. I think it is much better for git to complain loudly that it
could not compute the correct answer.

Fair enough.  I think we can resurrect the conditional and the traversal
option revs->ignore_missing_negative only for this hunk in my [2/2] patch
to support that use case.
...

Nah, I take that back.

Even the original code does not consider this case an error.

If you really want that, the revision machinery needs major surgery, as I
already noted that the design of mark_parents_uninteresting() wants to
treat a missing uninteresting commit as a non-error event.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:22:01AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Nah, I take that back.

Even the original code does not consider this case an error.

If you really want that, the revision machinery needs major surgery, as I
already noted that the design of mark_parents_uninteresting() wants to
treat a missing uninteresting commit as a non-error event.

Hrm. Never mind my concern, then. I was worried that we were losing some
existing corruption checks, but it seems they are not there in the first
place.

-Peff