Re: [Question] Is extensions.partialClone defunct?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 12, 2020, 18:10 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsgidfnqz.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200312175151.GB120942@google.com>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> Hmm...besides giving the name of the promisor remote, the
>> extensions.partialClone setting is there to prevent old versions of Git
>> (that do not know this extension) from manipulating the repo.
>
> Yes, so the lack of setting is a bug.
>
> Christian, what would your prefered way be to fix this?  Should
> extensions.partialclone specify a particular "default" promisor
> remote, or should we use a new repository extension for multiple
> promisors?

It would depend on how well versions of Git that supported one promisor with extensions.partialClone works with a repository initialized with Christian's multi promisors when the extension points at only a single promisor. Is having other/secondary promisors meant merely to be performance thing, or would the repository be broken if these promisors are down because some objects are never available from the "origin" or the primary promisor remote? If the former, using a "default" promisor with extensions.partialClone would be sufficient and be preferred as we do not end up wasting a new extension, but if the latter, we would need to prevent Git that is capable of single-promisor from touching the multi-promisor repository with a new extension.