Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce a "promisor-remote" capability

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:38:56 -0800

Christian Couder <[email-masked]> writes:

>> or is it merely
>> because the way the feature is verified assumes that the multi-pack
>> index is not used, even though the protocol exchange, capability
>> selection, and the actual behaviour adjustment for the capability
>> are all working just fine?  I am assuming it is the latter, but just
>> to make sure we know where we stand...
>
> Let me know if you need more than the above,

Hard to say if I got a test script when I asked for a simple yes-or-no
question.

> but I think it's fair for
> now to just use:
>
> GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX=0
> GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX_WRITE_INCREMENTAL=0
>
> at the top of the tests, like it's done in the version 4 of this
> series I will send soon.

Doesn't it mean that people should not use multi-pack-index or
incremental writing with this feature?  If we cannot make both of
them work together even in our controlled testing environment, how
would the users know what combinations of features are safe to use
and what are incompatible?  That sounds far from fair at least to me.

I see Taylor is included in the Cc: list, so hopefully, we'll get
the anomalies you found in the multi-pack stuff resolved and see how
well these two things would work together.

Thanks.