Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Fsck for lazy objects, and (now) actual invocation of loader

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2017, 20:15 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqfudbf3jd.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170801174502.GR13924@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> If we are deeply worried about this kind of broken connectivity, there
> is another case to care about: the server can "promise" to serve
> requests for some object (e.g., the tree pointed to by the server's
> "master") and then decide it does not want to fulfill that promise
> (e.g., that tree pointed to private key material and "master" was
> rewound to avoid it).

I think I've already covered that in my message (i.e. "we need to assume more than the normal Git"). In short, it is not our problem, but the "lazy-object" service's problem. If developers cannot trust the "central server", most likely owned by the organization that employs them and forces them to offload the access to these objects to the "central server", I think there is much larger problem there.

> In the promises model, how we do we get a fresh
> understanding of what the server wants to promise now?

Yes, that is one of the things that needs to be designed if we want to officially support lazy-objects like structure. We need a way to incrementally adjust the cut-off point, below which it is the responsibility of the "other side" to ensure that necessary objects are available (on demand), and above which it is a local repository's responsibility to notice corrupted and/or missing objects.