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

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 03:14:24PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
>>
>> Add a new --negotiation-require option to 'git fetch', which ensures
>> that certain ref tips are always sent as 'have' lines during fetch
>> negotiation, regardless of what the negotiation algorithm selects.
> 
> When reading "--negotiation-require" my mind immediately shifts towards
> a mode where we require the remote to have a specific reference, and if
> not we'll abort. That's of course not what you're proposing here, but I
> would think that I may not be the only person making that connection.
> 
> Would an alternative like "--negotiation-include" or
> "--negotiation-expand" be better?

>> +	/* 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));
>> +		}
>> +	}
> 
> Okay, so here we now unconditionally send our requested object IDs.
> 
> One thing I was wondering is whether we need to flush eventually. It can
> happen that the user specifies millions of refs, either intentionally or
> by accident. But I guess the answer might be "no", as the intent of the
> feature is that we indeed want to send all of those to the remote side,
> and the remote is being asked to consider all of those OIDs.