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

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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.