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

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't see this patch in "pu" or "What's Cooking" at all. Did it get
> dropped?