Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> My feeling exactly. Diagnosing and failing upfront saying "well you >>>> made a copy but it is not suitable for testing" sounds more sensible >>>> at lesat to me. >>> >>> This change makes the repo suitable for testing when it wasn't before. >> >> Perhaps "not suitable" was a bit too vague. >> >> The copy you made is not in a consistent state that is good for >> testing. This change may declare that it is now in a consistent >> state, but removal of a single *.lock file does not make it so. We >> do not know what other transient inconsistency the resulting copy >> has; it is inherent to git-unaware copy---that is why we discouraged >> and removed rsync transport after all. > > If we don't like git-unaware copies, maybe we should go back to the > reasons why we are making one here.
We do need git-unaware bit-for-bit copy for testing, because you may want to see the effect of unreachable objects, for example. It's just that git-unaware copies, because it cannot be an atomic snapshot, can introduce inconsistencies the original repository did not have, rendering the result ineffective.
