From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9FC1F42D for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 02:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750941AbeFACtt (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 22:49:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:46145 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbeFACtb (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2018 22:49:31 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id a3-v6so10565977pgt.13 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PicWejSsHIwlsTBVPA9byRsuXsUwxp+CfZc8LT4VhmM=; b=dVKIv7+cR6yg6kdd73r/cWyiYablQ6bek8Zv1/PWsgCPwleZx3dP0bIxzTfZcUgH02 76aCCUfpSF9uJ7svH704X+dzrkHhlHhrqvw61H59sgAFsrSYGbo8UKhaWpNiOeXY2UDA MXYI/4e2S3iWowO5gGYqSTC6D0SdSJ5fc3goDY/lixhCsZYxJhBo4mGAXToGqHlNTW5w XKUqlqCeF/NUPE73yfw3E3w4JF1NXhkumvtbxg7AKecbgJhGtOCKFfANf0oEhVxFyE00 8MmVpMH3rvNpv9NIVNoRHl81xjCeM2hSe9olop6yWTQ0xc7nW0SpK2nEkcxfyTrYBf5V ULqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PicWejSsHIwlsTBVPA9byRsuXsUwxp+CfZc8LT4VhmM=; b=HRvXK1+KRGDi05CM0PgkIFwY2EMjCuSO36BEydbwGUHG/hwCD/3Y6GJrX8uZ6Z4awe XPEha0mcxiQeMjVLWrkQ39SSwZxyiriJuLBprrdxCk5LVqyu62er/dlIr/rkqILzTEzU Yg9gounsvDH/afwO4HLa2ZRzVJhoTd/7lfhqdZrIAB6LtGwrywnC01sd+L6sGF9vIQoe dVDxqOYtsPIHy0+LKgTSJGcWiHXLE1TYumjAEcIzWzFx/LME06/jp6omBROfQtSTjW3i SxqocwcpV33+LZfsa1rh9U8DYfW7+SrD//FoVMrxdaWPM/q7/pFGOSGGW/joh8K2i1SH JqgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdas/N/CcBQmzgqK13BEw08DcP/9U1aeUf5xMCYX2sXH7C7Q0yi UB0tb5xrRb+SD3JJJHoJOpw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIwGi1N+Th6nz+8dyyrXyuM/DEl329dqYAhpFTb5gBw0lSjsfLXYKTAnyGLkF2RSNF+1By6FQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6185:: with SMTP id v127-v6mr7238228pgb.301.1527821370435; Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aiede.svl.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:4187:1d6c:d3d6:9ce6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1-v6sm56183207pgr.66.2018.05.31.19.49.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 19:49:24 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Brandon Williams , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: do not pass ref-prefixes for fetch by exact SHA1 Message-ID: <20180601024924.GA111965@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> References: <20180516225823.235426-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180516234822.182663-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180516234822.182663-2-bmwill@google.com> <20180531072339.GA43435@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: >> This patch adds a test to check this behavior that notices another >> behavior difference between protocol v0 and v2 in the process. Add a >> NEEDSWORK comment to clear it up. > > Thanks. > > I wonder if there is a more effective way to smoke out other bugs > remaining in proto v2. When the fetch-by-SHA1 feature was added > originally, we certainly would have added a test or two to make sure > it won't break. The root cause of this breakage is that we lack the > ability to easily exercise proto v2 on these existing tests that > were written back in the proto v0 days. It there were such a way > (like, a common set of tests that are run with all supported > protos), we would have caught the breakge even before the topic hit > 'next'. I had a similar thought. I am not sure I agree about the root cause, but root causes are generally slippery to define. Because this bug had significant internal impact, we came up with a few next steps: - shore up protocol v2 test coverage, as you described - arrange for long refactoring series we submit to be divided up for the team to review, to avoid reviewer fatigue. Hopefully this will make us a better example for other submitters of long series. We're open to cooperating with others --- maybe we can set up a volunteer reviewer brigade to get a more diverse set of eyes on each series --- though organizing that is harder. - improve telemetry for our internal deployment, to get earlier notice when Git is producing more errors. I suspect other installations may want something like this too --- e.g. I think this is one of the benefits of what Jeff Hostetler is starting to build with json-writer. - help internal users triage errors from Git (like those decision trees parents have to help decide when to bring a child to the doctor), so that we get earlier notice and can roll back and report upstream more quickly when they've run into a Git bug Or in other words, please expect more in this area soon, and feel free to pester me if the test coverage doesn't arrive. :) Thanks, Jonathan