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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6601F5AE for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:53:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728029AbgGGQxq (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:53:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46722 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726911AbgGGQxp (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:53:45 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x843.google.com (mail-qt1-x843.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::843]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71EC6C061755 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x843.google.com with SMTP id g13so32244902qtv.8 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jlpHMI8y696u+zVQytjvnhrfthj2k+bGWu3xoRhdn9g=; b=RnmrwZ7ba7pMUaz3UEyBC569ATqevMwrCDJtUnkDeYXfo0DBvhedlCyZYLA1rDKxaC v5xzRUIc7QnmYjo8lni202b6CBHvFkgm1/ssEX8JwkQygUXzLpQB9p7we6wOyluvZsY5 5/zU8qBIonRyh4P/MAfkTmcxYW5BYgCjyubc1aSikMOWgv1TcBhbL5vZ1wYQHQ+4YpJ7 1uLx+MAIQsLgV4QbUVvyrWgqciivsaINdmA2f9JHp02dKy6B4pLP73cCW/6QXvbxrrQn VJpRXPw/S2pPF5FkaV0uDKVu5VMMzHTF38J/uSjxnMquhaOC80TFmk87JijYrgZN5q+W vvMw== 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; bh=jlpHMI8y696u+zVQytjvnhrfthj2k+bGWu3xoRhdn9g=; b=ZTv53/0ILVXOY70ZITACGsU7v+LmymyfH77MOFRfUGQ1qjgqo88q0Ks4EGu42l86SO /GOBmF6wmIjOMCnpcB/7A/0rLOo3iGlEcTU63WBE+oTdL5SFpkvE0Y+Tuc131D+whLbe JHjkhnhq6ZfO/pUtDeJH+WejDaFXTCHoF/9TPRx5+y6Xb1seg1ukA3MJZgg8/3rDyQaX 4Cr36UP+l7/STsNnTEu1gSXM++4xmVrPbrPngoxsmMHuxR/cEpjdLU3eDRKl5Ni1TyXw B4t/WsI5kZuV0dLzG5osxNdbnhByYFRhYidwZRx5DzEsYRJxTLLBw5WBnSW34AREbSHL bLAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306r6yRt7Gs0UejWoOU5yrzZTxqY/Ks+T8edOMlO5mcAa/H9UiE +Tx2xPo1UJfjS38ZGh3KcxnsYDXwHphbag== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeOYq+XmwQdv7SkbWRehki9Eeu9jOubUyesQbSEfFGwRlXuNjt2OF49NLtNDYbBiqpodQy0g== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4588:: with SMTP id l8mr56360094qtn.189.1594140824480; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 09:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2605:9480:22e:ff10:cc04:7df5:37b0:651d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w18sm24843076qtn.3.2020.07.07.09.53.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:53:42 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH] experimental: default to fetch.writeCommitGraph=false Message-ID: <20200707165342.GB36941@syl.lan> References: <20200707062039.GC784740@google.com> <20200707151735.GA27992@syl.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau writes: > > >> I wonder if we perhaps wnat to add to the documentation for > >> writeCommitGraph configuration that its use is currently not > >> recommended in a shallow clone or something (I know it is not > >> a problem just to use it with shallow but the breakage needs > >> to involve unshallowing, but by definition those who do not > >> use shallow would not hit the unshallowing bug, so...). > > > > I think this is a good direction if you don't want to take the patch I > > sent in [1] for v2.28.0. If you do, though, I don't think that this > > would be necessary. > > Good timing. I didn't know a "fix" was already being worked on ([1] > is the patch from this morning, right? I haven't seen it except for > its subject). [1] is the fix. Jonathan wrote it a month or so ago, I just added a test on top. (Independently, I tested it with the reproduction in the original bug report, and it worked properly). > We could obviously do both excluding it from the usual experimental > set and applying your fix, so that those who are really curious can > help us make sure your fix would be all that is needed. Let's see > what Jonathan says... Either of those sound good to me. > Thanks. Thanks, Taylor