Re: Users of git-check-files?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Aug 3, 2005, 17:23 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508031014070.3258@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <7voe8fdkd7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > Are you sure you have a good git version on master? I've never seen 
> > anything like that, and I push all the time..
> 
> I have been esuspecting that it happens only because I rewind
> and rebase "pu", which you never do.  The thing is, even though
> I rewind "pu" all the time, it happens only occasionally.

Oh, that would do it.

You need to prune back the remote tree you send to, so that it is a real subset of what you are sending from (at least as far as the branch you send is concerned - other branches may be ahead of you, of course). Unlike "git-fetch-pack", the send-pack interface does not do any common commit discovery, so if you have state on the other end that isn't on your local end, that's setting yourself up for problems: you are basically misusing the interfaces.

I started out to make the "-f" flag to send-file work around it, but I never finished that, partly because it really ends up being the same thing as "git-fetch-pack" in reverse, which was against the whole point of git-send-pack. Send-pack is meant to be an "update remote tree" thing, with the assumption that the remote tree is a subset - and exactly that assumption is what makes send-pack much cheaper than fetch-pack.

(Actually, to me it's not the "cheaper" that matters, but exactly the fact that send-pack is so safe - if somebody has changed something at the other end that I don't have in mine, I _want_ errors, because that would be a serious problem).

		Linus