Jeff Hostetler <jeffh...@microsoft.com> writes: > From: Jeff Hostetler <g...@jeffhostetler.com> > > Teach rev-list to optionally not complain when there are missing > blobs. This is for use following a partial clone or fetch when > the server omitted certain blobs.
This makes it impossible to tell from objects missing by design (because we did an --partial-by-size clone earlier, expecting we can later fetch from elsewhere when necessary) and objects inaccessible by accident (because you have a repository corruption), no? Even though I do very much like the basic "high level" premise to omit often useless large blobs that are buried deep in the history we would not necessarily need from the initial cloning and subsequent fetches, I find it somewhat disturbing that the code "Assume"s that any missing blob is due to an previous partial clone. Adding this option smells like telling the users that they are not supposed to run "git fsck" because a partially cloned repository is inherently a corrupt repository. Can't we do a bit better? If we want to make the world safer again, what additional complexity is required to allow us to tell the "missing by design" and "corrupt repository" apart? Thanks.
