Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:46:13AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > This discussion stalled, but I finally got around to looking at it > today. I agree that we should leave aside more complex policy for now, > and start with bringing the "fetch" and "fetch-pack" filters into > harmony. That turns off for

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:19:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Actually, I think the above recollection of mine was completely > bogus. The && is there because we do allow things like "HEAD" (they > are the funny ones) as well as things inside refs/, and the latter > is the only thing we had a

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

Junio C Hamano writes: >> It's really not clear to me what the check in filter_refs was trying to >> do. It dates all the way back to 1baaae5 (Make maximal use of the remote >> refs, 2005-10-28), but there is not much explanation. I haven't dug into >> the list around that time to see if there's

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

Jeff King writes: > Then we ask fetch_refs_via_pack to get the actual objects for us. And > it checks our refs again, with this call chain: > > do_fetch > fetch_refs > transport_fetch_refs > fetch_refs_via_pack > fetch_pack > do_fetch_pack >

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 12:17:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I am fine with rejecting it with a warning, but we should not then > > complain that the other side did not send us the object, since we should > > not be asking for it at all. I also do not see us complaining about the > > funny

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:16:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > I was going to ask you to send your repository, but I can easily >> > reproduce here. I guess people don't run into it because it's uncommon >> > to fetch the whole refs/ namespace from a non-bare repo (and

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:16:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I was going to ask you to send your repository, but I can easily > > reproduce here. I guess people don't run into it because it's uncommon > > to fetch the whole refs/ namespace from a non-bare repo (and bare repos > > do not ten

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:12:51PM -0500, Matt Burke wrote: > >> + git init -q >> + git fetch -q -fu ../../../other '+refs/*:refs/*' >> fatal: bad object 9b985fbe6a2b783c16756077a8be261c94b6c197 >> error: ../../../other did not send all necessary objects > > I was going to ask

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:12:51PM -0500, Matt Burke wrote: > + git init -q > + git fetch -q -fu ../../../other '+refs/*:refs/*' > fatal: bad object 9b985fbe6a2b783c16756077a8be261c94b6c197 > error: ../../../other did not send all necessary objects I was going to ask you to send your repository,

Re: Bug report: stash in upstream caused remote fetch to fail

I ran into the same (or similar) problem as reported in . I have a script that, among other things, clones a git repository. Here's where it does that: + git init -q + git fetch -q -fu ../../../other '+refs/*:refs/*' fatal: bad object 9b985fbe6a2b78