On 9/12/2019 10:23 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:23:49AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>>> That creates an interesting problem for commits that have _already_ been
>>> parsed using the commit graph. Their commit->object.parsed flag is set,
>>> their commit->graph_pos is set, b
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:23:49AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > That creates an interesting problem for commits that have _already_ been
> > parsed using the commit graph. Their commit->object.parsed flag is set,
> > their commit->graph_pos is set, but their commit->maybe_tree may still
> > be
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:08:48PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > The test suite passes with my patch both with and without
> > GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH=1. But to my surprise, it also passes if I delete
> > the close_commit_graph() line added by 829a321569!
> >
> > So it's not clear to me whether this
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:06:20PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > > +# - we must use protocol v2, because it handles the "have" negotiation
> > > before
> > > +#processing the shallow direectives
>
> s/ee/e/
Thanks, fixed.
> We can't simply replace that 'git config' command with 'test_con
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:07:48PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > The new test in t5500 triggers this segfault, but see the comments there
> > for how horribly intimate it has to be with how both upload-pack and
> > commit graphs work.
>
> Thanks for the comment, too. I agree that protocol-level h
On 9/11/2019 10:07 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:>>
>> +# A few subtle things about the request in this test:
>> +#
>> +# - the server must have commit-graphs present and enabled
>
> I think "enabled" may be somewhat redundant, at least since some recent
> changes to enable this by default. (As an aside,
On 9/11/2019 8:04 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> When the client has asked for certain shallow options like
> "deepen-since", we do a custom rev-list walk that pretends to be
> shallow. Before doing so, we have to disable the commit-graph, since it
> is not compatible with the shallow view of the repositor
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:07:48PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh b/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
> > index 8210f63d41..7601664b74 100755
> > --- a/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5500-fetch-pack.sh
> > +# - we must use protocol v2, because it handles the "have" negot
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:18:46PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:04:14PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > When the client has asked for certain shallow options like
> > "deepen-since", we do a custom rev-list walk that pretends to be
> > shallow. Before doing so, we have to disa
Hi Peff,
Thanks in advance for digging into all of this. I feel guilty for having
found the issue myself, and then gotten a headache for just long enough
to have you completely fix the issue by the time that I got back. So,
thanks :-).
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:04:15PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:04:14PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> When the client has asked for certain shallow options like
> "deepen-since", we do a custom rev-list walk that pretends to be
> shallow. Before doing so, we have to disable the commit-graph, since it
> is not compatible with the shallow
When the client has asked for certain shallow options like
"deepen-since", we do a custom rev-list walk that pretends to be
shallow. Before doing so, we have to disable the commit-graph, since it
is not compatible with the shallow view of the repository. That's
handled by 829a321569 (commit-graph:
12 matches
Mail list logo
