Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Partial clone part 1: object filtering

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

> I can see some use for this parameter - for example, when doing a report
> for statistical purposes (percentage of objects missing, for example) or
> for a background task that downloads missing objects into a cache. Also,
> power users who know what they're doing (or normal users in an
> emergency) can use this option when they have no network connection if
> they really need to find something out from the local repo.
>
> In these cases, the promisor check (after detecting that the object is
> missing) is indeed not so useful, I think. (Or we can do the
> --exclude=missing and --exclude=promisor idea that Jeff mentioned -
> --exclude=missing now, and --exclude=promisor after we add promisor
> support.)

This sounds like a reasonable thing to have in the endgame state to
me.

> Having said that, I would be OK if we didn't have tolerance (and/or
> reporting) of missing objects right now. As far as I know, for the
> initial implementation of partial clone, only the server performs any
> filtering, and we assume that the server possesses all objects (so it
> does not need to filter out any missing objects).

True.  It does not have to exist in an early part, but I do not
think we would terribly mind if it does, if only to help debugging
and development.

Thanks for thinking it through.