Subject: Re: [PATCH] reachable: only mark local objects as recent

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:28:25 -0400

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > It is possible that we may drop an object that is depended
> > upon by another object in the alternate. For example,
> > imagine two repositories, A and B, with A pointing to B as
> > an alternate. Now imagine a commit that is in B which
> > references a tree that is only in A. Traversing from recent
> > objects in B might prevent A from dropping that tree. But
> > this case isn't worth covering. Repo B should take
> > responsibility for its own objects. It would never have had
> > the commit in the first place if it did not also have the
> > tree, and assuming it is using the same "keep recent chunks
> > of history" scheme, then it would itself keep the tree, as
> > well.
> 
> In other words, if you have a loop in dependency chain among
> alternate repositories, your set-up is broken by definition.
> 
> Which makes sense to me.
> 
> Thanks.

I don't see this patch in "pu" or "What's Cooking" at all. Did it get
dropped?

It does fix a performance regression, but the problem is in v2.2, so I
don't think it's urgent for v2.4-rc.

-Peff