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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 D38F91F8C1 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 16:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729635AbgEDQ3i (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:38 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:57963 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729634AbgEDQ3h (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC72DA32C; Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=SaAXZIre7HzWd57Gj13IIAhC6aY=; b=w99axt UYzQFm44LIWHt1CkKfpKgXMYR7vvx7Nt5GpYpsibdkt+o2f/FVZ4SFnqhmbrZFU3 HLf5sYS5S678JxAvOx1TQ+9cJgNgOp3WwD+MNPf9k0PNxm58M4RtC2jzMBtBQ/kA 7mp47+b6LxpCIE9JLjap8KykYu4g+pz6qDqLA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=igZtaVPUDKMtlo3H9g4rmIG/z85OEYs5 TjG2G4fz65y8Mu0u2b/M7M6reDFJYkbGet88fh1RPzgFoNkvmY6S30sesBahQsGS A4paHcEZ2dzu7FQr/9wqcP7N2a1bT19WudfslMVBV4ZhZeq+icmkUzEEFnLdogX6 69V+uPwGJH4= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062EEDA32B; Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32E5FDA32A; Mon, 4 May 2020 12:29:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, martin.agren@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] commit-graph.c: introduce '--[no-]check-oids' References: <1ff42f4c3d568dd25889d2808cda3edf38a36cb9.1586836700.git.me@ttaylorr.com> <20200415042930.GA11703@syl.local> <20200415043137.GA12136@syl.local> <20200422105536.GB3063@szeder.dev> <20200422233930.GB19100@syl.local> <20200424105957.GB5925@szeder.dev> <20200501223848.GH41612@syl.local> <20200503094005.GD170902@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200504145937.GA11373@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 09:29:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200504145937.GA11373@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 4 May 2020 10:59:37 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6E82B128-8E24-11EA-93E6-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:55:39AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> >> Does that seem reasonable? >> > >> > FWIW, I think that is the best direction. If anybody is depending on the >> > "commit-graph write will complain about non-commits" behavior, they >> > could only be doing so for a few versions; prior to v2.24.0 we did not. >> >> If we had it for the past 180 days or so, that's not like " people >> have seen it for only a brief time", but working it around shouldn't >> be too difficult---they need to validate the input they feed to the >> command themselves (or do they need to do more?). > > Yeah, my point wasn't so much that it was brief as that we've had it > both ways, and nobody was complaining about it before v2.24.0 (the > type-restriction change came as a side effect of another tightening). > > But yeah, if somebody really wants that validation, they can do it > themselves with "cat-file --batch-check". Or even for-each-ref directly: > > git for-each-ref --format='%(objectname) %(objecttype) %(*objecttype)' | > awk '/commit/ { print $1 }' | > git commit-graph write --stdin-commits > > If you're using --stdin-commits, you're presumably processing the input > anyway (since otherwise you'd just be using --reachable). > > I suppose you could argue the other way, too (that the user could be > filtering out non-commits). But so far we have one data point in either > direction, and it wants the more forgiving behavior. :) Yup. I agree that Taylor outlined the best direction going forward. Thanks.