Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
4. Fsck complains about missing blobs. Should be fairly easy to fix.
Not really. You'll have to associate path information with blobs
before you decide that a blob should exist or not.
Also the same blob or the tree can exist both inside and outside the
narrowed area, as people reorganize their trees all the time. I am
not quite convinced a path-based approach (either yours or Robin's)
is workable in the longer term.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
4. Fsck complains about missing blobs. Should be fairly easy to fix.
Not really. You'll have to associate path information with blobs
before you decide that a blob should exist or not.
Also the same blob or the tree can exist both inside and outside the
narrowed area, as people reorganize their trees all the time. I am
not quite convinced a path-based approach (either yours or Robin's)
is workable in the longer term.
I think it should be ok. What I meant was when we travel the trees to
find connected blobs, if a tree points to paths outside the narrowed
area, we do not add those blobs to our fsck list. Trees inside the
narrow area work as usually so those shared blobs are added to fsck
list anyway. Object islands are going to be problem (because we can't
assign paths to them)...
--
Duy