Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] fetch: add --negotiation-require option for negotiation

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 12:50:27 -0700

"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <[email-masked]> writes:

> +`--negotiation-require=<revision>`::
> +	Ensure that the given ref tip is always sent as a "have" line
> +	during fetch negotiation, regardless of what the negotiation
> +	algorithm selects.  This is useful to guarantee that common
> +	history reachable from specific refs is always considered, even
> +	when `--negotiation-restrict` restricts the set of tips or when
> +	the negotiation algorithm would otherwise skip them.
> ++
> +This option may be specified more than once; if so, each ref is sent
> +unconditionally.
> ++
> +The argument may be an exact ref name (e.g. `refs/heads/release`) or a
> +glob pattern (e.g. `refs/heads/release/{asterisk}`).  The pattern syntax
> +is the same as for `--negotiation-restrict`.
> ++
> +If `--negotiation-restrict` is used, the have set is first restricted by
> +that option and then increased to include the tips specified by
> +`--negotiation-require`.

Very readable.  Nice.

> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
> index 57b2b667ff..b60652e6b1 100644
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ static struct transport *gsecondary;
>  static struct refspec refmap = REFSPEC_INIT_FETCH;
>  static struct string_list server_options = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
>  static struct string_list negotiation_tip = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> +static struct string_list negotiation_require = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;

I thought _tip was renamed to _restrict in an earlier step, but that
was only in the transport in [3/7].  Perhaps we want to rename the
file-scope static variable negotiation_tip to negotiation_restrict
in an earlier step, like in [2/7]?

> +	for_each_string_list_item(item, negotiation_require) {
> +		if (!has_glob_specials(item->string)) {
> +			struct object_id oid;
> +			if (repo_get_oid(the_repository, item->string, &oid))
> +				continue;

The configuration (or command line) says --nego-require=refs/heads/main
but this old repository only has refs/heads/master; we do not want
to error out in such a case.

Is it true, though?  nego-{require,restrict} feels quite tied to
each project and unless the configuration or command line options
are applied blindly regardless of the project, such an error should
not happen.  Perhaps the user who gives a command line option
"--nego-require=refs/heads/naster" may want to be reminded of a
possible typo?

> +			if (!odb_has_object(the_repository->objects, &oid, 0))
> +				continue;

This is a bit curious.  When does the first condition holds but not
the second?  A lazy clone whose ref-tip contains a missing commit
promised by somebody else?

In the presense of "promised objects are allowed to be missing"
rule, silently skipping a missing object here is certainly
conservative, but this is not an object that is buried deep in a
tree hierarchy, but the top-level commit or tag that is directly
pointed at by a ref, isn't it?  I am a bit uneasy that we ignore
such potential repository corruption (i.e., a missing object may not
be something a promisor remote promised but simply missing).

> @@ -474,7 +511,25 @@ static int find_common(struct fetch_negotiator *negotiator,
>  	trace2_region_enter("fetch-pack", "negotiation_v0_v1", the_repository);
>  	flushes = 0;
>  	retval = -1;
> +
> +	/* Send unconditional haves from --negotiation-require */
> +	resolve_negotiation_require(args->negotiation_require,
> +				    &negotiation_require_oids);
> +	if (oidset_size(&negotiation_require_oids)) {
> +		struct oidset_iter iter;
> +		oidset_iter_init(&negotiation_require_oids, &iter);
> +
> +		while ((oid = oidset_iter_next(&iter))) {
> +			packet_buf_write(&req_buf, "have %s\n",
> +					 oid_to_hex(oid));
> +			print_verbose(args, "have %s", oid_to_hex(oid));
> +		}
> +	}

OK.  I think it makes sense to send these early.  We have already
dealt with the usual "tips" by calling mark_tips() way earlier, but
that hasn't produced any "have" yet, and these will go before the
ones from traversal.  We do not traverse from these "require" and
that may be why these are not called "_tips"?

And sending these early means the other side has much less chance to
say "we've heard enough, stop!", so in a sense they are of much
higher priority "have"s (I wonder what happens when they do want to
say "stop!" while we are giving a lot of "have" from this loop,
though).

>  	while ((oid = negotiator->next(negotiator))) {
> +		/* avoid duplicate oids from --negotiation-require */
> +		if (oidset_contains(&negotiation_require_oids, oid))
> +			continue;

If objects rechable from "require" are traversed like others, then
this "avoid duplicate" would become unnecessary, right?