Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fsck for lazy objects, and (now) actual invocation of loader

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

If we are deeply worried about this kind of broken connectivity, there
is another case to care about: the server can "promise" to serve
requests for some object (e.g., the tree pointed to by the server's
"master") and then decide it does not want to fulfill that promise
(e.g., that tree pointed to private key material and "master" was
rewound to avoid it).  

I think I've already covered that in my message (i.e. "we need to
assume more than the normal Git").  In short, it is not our problem,
but the "lazy-object" service's problem.  If developers cannot trust
the "central server", most likely owned by the organization that
employs them and forces them to offload the access to these objects
to the "central server", I think there is much larger problem there.

In the promises model, how we do we get a fresh
understanding of what the server wants to promise now?

Yes, that is one of the things that needs to be designed if we want
to officially support lazy-objects like structure.  We need a way to
incrementally adjust the cut-off point, below which it is the
responsibility of the "other side" to ensure that necessary objects
are available (on demand), and above which it is a local
repository's responsibility to notice corrupted and/or missing
objects.