Breaks in a test assertion's && chain can potentially hide
failures from earlier commands in the chain.
Commands intended to fail should be marked with !, test_must_fail, or
test_might_fail. The examples in this patch do not require that.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Most of the existing codepaths were meant to treat missing uninteresting
objects to be a silently ignored non-error, but there were a few places
in handle_commit() and add_parents_to_list(), which are two key functions
in the revision traversal machinery, that cared:
- When a tag refers to an object that we do not have, we barfed. We
ignore such a tag if it is painted as UNINTERESTING with this change.
- When digging deeper into the ancestry chain of a commit that is already
painted as UNINTERESTING, in order to paint its parents UNINTERESTING,
we barfed if parse_parent() for a parent commit object failed. We can
ignore such a parent commit object.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
v1.6.1 introduced ".have" extension to the protocol to allow the receiving
side to advertise objects that are reachable from refs in the repositories
it borrows from. This was meant to be used by the sending side to avoid
sending such objects; they are already available through the alternates
mechanism.
The client side implementation in v1.6.1, which was introduced with
40c155f (push: prepare sender to receive extended ref information from the
receiver, 2008-09-09) aka v1.6.1-rc1~203^2~1, were faulty in that it did
not consider the possiblity that the repository receiver borrows from
might have objects it does not know about.
This fixes it by refraining from passing missing commits to underlying
pack-objects. Revision machinery may need to be tightened further to
treat missing uninteresting objects as non-error events, but this is an
obvious and safe fix for a maintenance release that is almost good enough.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Jonathan Nieder