From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:22:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1
Message-ID: <7vbptrvo0m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vfxj3vos2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> But in other cases, it silently gives you the wrong answer.  For
>> example, consider a history like:
>>
>>        C--D
>>       /
>>   A--B
>>       \
>>        E--F
>>
>> now let's suppose I have everything except 'E'. If I ask for
>>
>>   git rev-list F..D
>>
>> then it will not realize that A and B are uninteresting, and I will get
>> A-B-C-D. I think it is much better for git to complain loudly that it
>> could not compute the correct answer.
>
> Fair enough.  I think we can resurrect the conditional and the traversal
> option revs->ignore_missing_negative only for this hunk in my [2/2] patch
> to support that use case.
> ...

Nah, I take that back.

Even the original code does not consider this case an error.

If you really want that, the revision machinery needs major surgery, as I
already noted that the design of mark_parents_uninteresting() wants to
treat a missing uninteresting commit as a non-error event.