Re: [PATCH 2/2] receive-pack: use advertised reference tips to inform connectivity check

> > > Maybe, though I think it's fine to let clients send us smaller packfiles
> > > if they have some a-priori knowledge that the server has objects that it
> > > isn't advertising. And that can all happen without buggy code. So it's
> > > weird, but there isn't anything wrong with letting it happen.
> >
> > Well, I don't see how to achieve both at the same time though: we can
> > either limit the set of uninteresting tips to what we have announced to
> > the client, or we allow clients to omit objects that have not been
> > announced. These are mutually exclusive.
> >
> > So if we take the stance that it was fine to send packfiles that omit
> > hidden objects and that this is something we want to continue to support
> > then this patch series probably becomes moot. Doing the proposed
> > optimization means that we also tighten the rules here.
>
> I'm wrong and you're right: we can do the optimization to limit the refs
> we use but still let clients send objects that are hidden. I didn't take
> into account that this is merely an optimization that we stop walking at
> reachable tips. I'll reword the commit message when having another go
> and will likely do something along the lines of your proposed new
> `--visible-refs` option in v2 of this series.