From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2485A1F5AD for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726682AbgDJVAp (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:00:45 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40196 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726626AbgDJVAp (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:00:45 -0400 Received: (qmail 8065 invoked by uid 109); 10 Apr 2020 21:00:46 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:00:46 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 2852 invoked by uid 111); 10 Apr 2020 21:11:18 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:11:18 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:00:44 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Josep Torra , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible regression in git 2.26.0 Message-ID: <20200410210044.GA2074620@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20200331172218.evsoljccfmjec2mz@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200331172218.evsoljccfmjec2mz@chatter.i7.local> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:22:18PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > 16:47 repo: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc branch: for-linux-next > 16:48 went from trying to transfer 7226542 to just 19 > 16:48 even after I did a reset of the remote branch at my end and a gc > 16:49 it updated b1e7396a1d0e..98878d9dfc7a > 16:50 in case it matters, I have "tagopt = --no-tags" set for all the repos > I fetch (for obvious reasons) > 16:52 removing the protocol.version=1 (and resetting/gcing) gets me the bad > behaviour again :-( > 16:52 mricon: so good shot! :-) > > It appears that there are cases where protocol.version=2 is causing > weird results during ref negotiation? Possibly. The underlying negotiation technique is roughly the same, but it's possible there's a subtle difference in the v2 code. I spent a little time trying to reproduce with the branch mentioned above, but couldn't. If somebody hits it again, the most useful thing would be: - a dump of "git for-each-ref" in the client repo - the exact fetch (or pull) command which behaves differently between the two protocols -Peff