fetch: write commit-graph using updated refs only #2239

gitgitgadget · 2026-10-02T15:28:01Z

Patrick Steinhardt wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 08:33:38AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Kristofer Karlsson <[email protected]> > > When fetch.writeCommitGraph was introduced in > > 50f26bd035 (fetch: add fetch.writeCommitGraph config > setting, 2019-09-02), > > the stated goal was to stay updated with the latest commits after > fetching new objects. The implementation used > write_commit_graph_reachable() because it was the only API available, > but two things have changed since then: > > 1. write_commit_graph() was added, and it accepts an explicit set of > commits as seeds, enabling more targeted commit-graph updates. Hm. The big question here is whether these additional seeds are additive or exclusive. That is, if I have an existing commit graph already, would it basically just extend the commit graph with the additional object IDs or would it replace the commit graph with a new one that only considers the passe object IDs as input? I would hope that it's additive, because otherwise you may now lose commit graph coverage for stuff that was covered before the patch. > 2. The ref-scanning callback add_ref_to_set() became more expensive > in > 630cd5194e (commit-graph.c: peel refs in 'add_ref_to_set', > 2020-07-22) > when it started to validate the refs against the odb > for correctness. On a repository with many refs, this makes the > full reachable scan unnecessarily costly for a targeted fetch. I was wondering whether incremental commit graphs would also be part of the reasoning. Because in theory, now that we have those, we could even extend the commit graph on a fetch by just writing another layer. > Optimize the commit-graph write by using only the newly updated refs > as seeds instead of scanning all refs after every fetch. To keep > this change small, skip the optimization for multi-remote fetches > (since that would require propagating the set of refs across process > boundaries). Yeah, the way we perform fetches can be a bit annoying at times, as all these subprocesses make it very hard to exchange information. > Since do_fetch() already knows which refs were updated, collect them > into an oidset and then pass them directly to write_commit_graph(). > In split mode, close_reachable() walks from the updated tips and > stops at commits already present in the graph, efficiently adding > the newly fetched history. This reachability closure also covers > auto-followed tags, since their targets are reachable from the > fetched tips that caused them to be auto-followed. Aha! So I wasn't that far off :) Now there's a follow-up question though: what happens in non-split mode? > After fetch_one() returns, call prepare_commit_graph() (which is > made non-static by this commit) to determine the graph-write mode: > > - If no commit-graph exists yet, fall back to the full reachable > scan so the first graph creation covers all refs. > > - If a commit-graph exists and the fetch updated at least one ref, > write incrementally using only the new refs as seeds. > > - If a commit-graph exists but the fetch is a no-op, skip the > commit-graph write entirely. > > - For the multi-remote path (fetch --all), where child processes > do the actual fetching, fall back to the full reachable scan. All of these make sense, but the above question is not answered yet. > Full commit-graph coverage of all refs remains the responsibility > of "git maintenance", "git gc" and "git commit-graph write". > Regular Git operations may trigger "git maintenance run --auto", > which periodically rebuilds the commit-graph from all reachable > refs. Curiously, you mention performance as motivating factor for this change but don't provide a benchmark demonstrating the benefit. > diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c > index 533fdfe7d8..8ad7331640 100644 > --- a/builtin/fetch.c > +++ b/builtin/fetch.c > @@ -1903,10 +1903,30 @@ out: > return retcode; > } > > +static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map) > +{ > + struct ref *rm; > + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) { > + struct commit *commit; > + if (rm->status == REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW) > + continue; Hm. Shouldn't we also refuse almost all of the other values here? I'd expect that we only want to consider a tip when it has REF_STATUS_OK. > + if (is_null_oid(&rm->old_oid)) > + continue; > + if (rm->peer_ref && > + oideq(&rm->old_oid, &rm->peer_ref->old_oid)) > + continue; > + commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository, > + &rm->old_oid, 1); > + if (commit) > + oidset_insert(tips, &commit->object.oid); This is something that always trips me with `struct ref`, that I'm never quite sure what's what. So please forgive my ignorance, but why do we look up `rm->old_oid` here? > @@ -2535,6 +2559,12 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, > int negotiate_only = 0; > int porcelain = 0; > int i; > + enum { > + GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE, > + GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS, > + GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP, > + } graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE; > + struct oidset updated_tips = OIDSET_INIT; > > struct option builtin_fetch_options[] = { > OPT__VERBOSITY(&verbosity), > @@ -2822,7 +2852,13 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, > } > trace2_region_enter("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > result = fetch_one(remote, argc, argv, prune_tags_ok, stdin_refspecs, > - &config, &filter_options); > + &config, &filter_options, &updated_tips); > + if (prepare_commit_graph(the_repository)) { > + if (oidset_size(&updated_tips)) > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS; > + else > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP; > + } > trace2_region_leave("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > } else { > int max_children = max_jobs; It's a bit curious that we have `GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP` as an explicit value here as it can be trivially derived from `oidset_size()` anyway. But other than that this is the safeguard that you were talking about: when we have a commit graph already then we only update with new tips, otherwise we use a full reachability walk. Thanks! Patrick

Kristofer Karlsson wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 at 13:22, Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 1. write_commit_graph() was added, and it accepts an explicit set of > > commits as seeds, enabling more targeted commit-graph updates. > > Hm. The big question here is whether these additional seeds are additive > or exclusive. That is, if I have an existing commit graph already, would > it basically just extend the commit graph with the additional object IDs > or would it replace the commit graph with a new one that only considers > the passe object IDs as input? > > I would hope that it's additive, because otherwise you may now lose > commit graph coverage for stuff that was covered before the patch. Yes, it is additive. fetch always writes with this flag: int commit_graph_flags = COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT; so write_commit_graph() only adds the commits that are not already in the graph, as a new layer on top of the existing chain. When layers get merged, the commits of the merged layers are carried over. You are right that a non-split write without COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_APPEND would replace the graph with just the closure of the seeds, so this relies on fetch using split mode. I can extend the test to verify that commits which were in the graph before the fetch are still there afterwards. > > 2. The ref-scanning callback add_ref_to_set() became more expensive > > in > > 630cd5194e (commit-graph.c: peel refs in 'add_ref_to_set', > > 2020-07-22) > > when it started to validate the refs against the odb > > for correctness. On a repository with many refs, this makes the > > full reachable scan unnecessarily costly for a targeted fetch. > > I was wondering whether incremental commit graphs would also be part of > the reasoning. Because in theory, now that we have those, we could even > extend the commit graph on a fetch by just writing another layer. Yes, that is exactly what happens: since fetch writes in split mode, the newly fetched history ends up in a new layer. The commit message should say so explicitly, and I will update it in the reroll. > > Since do_fetch() already knows which refs were updated, collect them > > into an oidset and then pass them directly to write_commit_graph(). > > In split mode, close_reachable() walks from the updated tips and > > stops at commits already present in the graph, efficiently adding > > the newly fetched history. This reachability closure also covers > > auto-followed tags, since their targets are reachable from the > > fetched tips that caused them to be auto-followed. > > Aha! So I wasn't that far off :) Now there's a follow-up question > though: what happens in non-split mode? The fetch path never uses non-split mode (see above). If that ever changes, the incremental path would need COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_APPEND, or a fallback to the reachable scan, to avoid losing coverage. > > After fetch_one() returns, call prepare_commit_graph() (which is > > made non-static by this commit) to determine the graph-write mode: > > > > - If no commit-graph exists yet, fall back to the full reachable > > scan so the first graph creation covers all refs. > > > > - If a commit-graph exists and the fetch updated at least one ref, > > write incrementally using only the new refs as seeds. > > > > - If a commit-graph exists but the fetch is a no-op, skip the > > commit-graph write entirely. > > > > - For the multi-remote path (fetch --all), where child processes > > do the actual fetching, fall back to the full reachable scan. > > All of these make sense, but the above question is not answered yet. I hope the answer above covers it. :) > Curiously, you mention performance as motivating factor for this change > but don't provide a benchmark demonstrating the benefit. I left it out since the change avoids work rather than making existing work faster: the cost of the full scan grows with the number of refs, so the improvement depends mostly on the repository. But I agree that some numbers are useful. Here is a synthetic setup: git.git with 200K extra packed refs (~206K total), a local file:// remote, an existing split commit-graph (and a warmed up page-cache). Times are the median of 9 runs and I am looking at the trace2 region for fetch/write-commit-graph: scenario before after no-op fetch 380 ms (skipped) 1 ref updated 357 ms 9.3 ms 10 refs updated 359 ms 8.9 ms I will include these numbers in the cover letter of the reroll, or do you think it makes more sense to also have them in the commit message? > > diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c > > index 533fdfe7d8..8ad7331640 100644 > > --- a/builtin/fetch.c > > +++ b/builtin/fetch.c > > @@ -1903,10 +1903,30 @@ out: > > return retcode; > > } > > > > +static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map) > > +{ > > + struct ref *rm; > > + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) { > > + struct commit *commit; > > + if (rm->status == REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW) > > + continue; > > Hm. Shouldn't we also refuse almost all of the other values here? I'd > expect that we only want to consider a tip when it has REF_STATUS_OK. This confused me at first too. REF_STATUS_OK and most of the other values are only used on the push side. During fetch, the status stays at REF_STATUS_NONE, and the only value that fetch-pack sets is REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW, so that is the only one we need to filter. Requiring REF_STATUS_OK would skip every ref. However, I could change it to use status != REF_STATUS_NONE -- those are the only two statuses we can get so both would work, but I guess which one is best depends on what kind of new statuses could be added in the future. Refs whose local update gets rejected (e.g. a non-fast-forward without --force) are still harmless to include, since their commits are fully present in the object store. > > + if (is_null_oid(&rm->old_oid)) > > + continue; > > + if (rm->peer_ref && > > + oideq(&rm->old_oid, &rm->peer_ref->old_oid)) > > + continue; > > + commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository, > > + &rm->old_oid, 1); > > + if (commit) > > + oidset_insert(tips, &commit->object.oid); > > This is something that always trips me with `struct ref`, that I'm never > quite sure what's what. So please forgive my ignorance, but why do we > look up `rm->old_oid` here? This tripped me up as well. In the fetch ref_map: rm->old_oid the value advertised by the remote, i.e. the new tip we are fetching rm->peer_ref the local ref it maps to via the refspec (e.g. refs/remotes/origin/main), or NULL if it only goes to FETCH_HEAD rm->peer_ref->old_oid the current local value, before the update So rm->old_oid is the new tip, and the oideq() check skips refs that did not change. rm->new_oid is not set on the ref_map during fetch; store_updated_refs() copies rm->old_oid into the new_oid of a separate struct ref for the local update. As a concrete example, say "git fetch origin" with the default refspec sees that the remote's main moved from A to B, a new branch topic appeared at C, and stable is still at D: rm->name old_oid peer_ref->name peer old_oid refs/heads/main B refs/remotes/origin/main A refs/heads/topic C refs/remotes/origin/topic (null) refs/heads/stable D refs/remotes/origin/stable D This collects B and C as tips and skips stable. When fetching from a URL without a configured remote, e.g. "git fetch <url> main", the entry has no peer_ref (it only goes to FETCH_HEAD), so B is collected unconditionally. > > @@ -2535,6 +2559,12 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, > > int negotiate_only = 0; > > int porcelain = 0; > > int i; > > + enum { > > + GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE, > > + GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS, > > + GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP, > > + } graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE; > > + struct oidset updated_tips = OIDSET_INIT; > > > > struct option builtin_fetch_options[] = { > > OPT__VERBOSITY(&verbosity), > > @@ -2822,7 +2852,13 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, > > } > > trace2_region_enter("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > > result = fetch_one(remote, argc, argv, prune_tags_ok, stdin_refspecs, > > - &config, &filter_options); > > + &config, &filter_options, &updated_tips); > > + if (prepare_commit_graph(the_repository)) { > > + if (oidset_size(&updated_tips)) > > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS; > > + else > > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP; > > + } > > trace2_region_leave("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > > } else { > > int max_children = max_jobs; > > It's a bit curious that we have `GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP` as an explicit value > here as it can be trivially derived from `oidset_size()` anyway. But > other than that this is the safeguard that you were talking about: when > we have a commit graph already then we only update with new tips, > otherwise we use a full reachability walk. The oidset can be empty for two different reasons: 1. the fetch was a no-op, in which case skipping is correct, or 2. fetch_one() was never called because we took the multi-remote path, in which case we must fall back to the reachable scan. Deriving the mode from oidset_size() alone would make "fetch --all" with an existing graph skip the write entirely. Setting the mode right where the fetch happens seemed like the best way to make this more explicit and easy to reason about. > Thanks! > > Patrick Thanks for the careful review! I will update the commit message to cover the points above, extend the test, and send a reroll (next week I suppose, don't want to rush it). Kristofer

Patrick Steinhardt wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 02:40:44PM +0200, Kristofer Karlsson wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 at 13:22, Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1. write_commit_graph() was added, and it accepts an explicit set of > > > commits as seeds, enabling more targeted commit-graph updates. > > > > Hm. The big question here is whether these additional seeds are additive > > or exclusive. That is, if I have an existing commit graph already, would > > it basically just extend the commit graph with the additional object IDs > > or would it replace the commit graph with a new one that only considers > > the passe object IDs as input? > > > > I would hope that it's additive, because otherwise you may now lose > > commit graph coverage for stuff that was covered before the patch. > > Yes, it is additive. fetch always writes with this flag: > > int commit_graph_flags = COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT; > > so write_commit_graph() only adds the commits that are not already > in the graph, as a new layer on top of the existing chain. When > layers get merged, the commits of the merged layers are carried over. > > You are right that a non-split write without COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_APPEND > would replace the graph with just the closure of the seeds, so this > relies on fetch using split mode. I can extend the test to verify > that commits which were in the graph before the fetch are still there > afterwards. Awesome :) [snip] > > Curiously, you mention performance as motivating factor for this change > > but don't provide a benchmark demonstrating the benefit. > > I left it out since the change avoids work rather than making existing > work faster: the cost of the full scan grows with the number of refs, > so the improvement depends mostly on the repository. But I agree that > some numbers are useful. Here is a synthetic setup: git.git with 200K > extra packed refs (~206K total), a local file:// remote, an existing > split commit-graph (and a warmed up page-cache). Times are the median > of 9 runs and I am looking at the trace2 region for > fetch/write-commit-graph: > > scenario before after > no-op fetch 380 ms (skipped) > 1 ref updated 357 ms 9.3 ms > 10 refs updated 359 ms 8.9 ms > > I will include these numbers in the cover letter of the reroll, > or do you think it makes more sense to also have them in the commit > message? I think it makes sense to have it as part of the commit message. > > > diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c > > > index 533fdfe7d8..8ad7331640 100644 > > > --- a/builtin/fetch.c > > > +++ b/builtin/fetch.c > > > @@ -1903,10 +1903,30 @@ out: > > > return retcode; > > > } > > > > > > +static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map) > > > +{ > > > + struct ref *rm; > > > + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) { > > > + struct commit *commit; > > > + if (rm->status == REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW) > > > + continue; > > > > Hm. Shouldn't we also refuse almost all of the other values here? I'd > > expect that we only want to consider a tip when it has REF_STATUS_OK. > > This confused me at first too. REF_STATUS_OK and most of the other > values are only used on the push side. During fetch, the status stays > at REF_STATUS_NONE, and the only value that fetch-pack sets is > REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW, so that is the only one we need to filter. > Requiring REF_STATUS_OK would skip every ref. > > However, I could change it to use status != REF_STATUS_NONE -- > those are the only two statuses we can get so both would work, > but I guess which one is best depends on what kind of new statuses > could be added in the future. Okay, makes sense. I'd aim to be as defensive as possible, and defensive here probably means that we should err on the side of covering too many commits rather than covering not enough. And that's basically what you're already doing anyway. I think having a short comment that explains this would help though. > Refs whose local update gets rejected (e.g. a non-fast-forward without > --force) are still harmless to include, since their commits are fully > present in the object store. Yup. > > > + if (is_null_oid(&rm->old_oid)) > > > + continue; > > > + if (rm->peer_ref && > > > + oideq(&rm->old_oid, &rm->peer_ref->old_oid)) > > > + continue; > > > + commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository, > > > + &rm->old_oid, 1); > > > + if (commit) > > > + oidset_insert(tips, &commit->object.oid); > > > > This is something that always trips me with `struct ref`, that I'm never > > quite sure what's what. So please forgive my ignorance, but why do we > > look up `rm->old_oid` here? > > This tripped me up as well. In the fetch ref_map: > > rm->old_oid the value advertised by the remote, i.e. > the new tip we are fetching > rm->peer_ref the local ref it maps to via the refspec > (e.g. refs/remotes/origin/main), or NULL > if it only goes to FETCH_HEAD > rm->peer_ref->old_oid the current local value, before the update > > So rm->old_oid is the new tip, and the oideq() check skips refs that > did not change. rm->new_oid is not set on the ref_map during fetch; > store_updated_refs() copies rm->old_oid into the new_oid of a > separate struct ref for the local update. > > As a concrete example, say "git fetch origin" with the default > refspec sees that the remote's main moved from A to B, a new branch > topic appeared at C, and stable is still at D: > > rm->name old_oid peer_ref->name peer old_oid > refs/heads/main B refs/remotes/origin/main A > refs/heads/topic C refs/remotes/origin/topic (null) > refs/heads/stable D refs/remotes/origin/stable D > > This collects B and C as tips and skips stable. When fetching from > a URL without a configured remote, e.g. "git fetch <url> main", the > entry has no peer_ref (it only goes to FETCH_HEAD), so B is > collected unconditionally. That part really is quite confusing. Thanks for explaining! > > > @@ -2822,7 +2852,13 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, > > > } > > > trace2_region_enter("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > > > result = fetch_one(remote, argc, argv, prune_tags_ok, stdin_refspecs, > > > - &config, &filter_options); > > > + &config, &filter_options, &updated_tips); > > > + if (prepare_commit_graph(the_repository)) { > > > + if (oidset_size(&updated_tips)) > > > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS; > > > + else > > > + graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP; > > > + } > > > trace2_region_leave("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository); > > > } else { > > > int max_children = max_jobs; > > > > It's a bit curious that we have `GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP` as an explicit value > > here as it can be trivially derived from `oidset_size()` anyway. But > > other than that this is the safeguard that you were talking about: when > > we have a commit graph already then we only update with new tips, > > otherwise we use a full reachability walk. > > The oidset can be empty for two different reasons: > > 1. the fetch was a no-op, in which case skipping is correct, or > > 2. fetch_one() was never called because we took the multi-remote > path, in which case we must fall back to the reachable scan. > > Deriving the mode from oidset_size() alone would make "fetch --all" > with an existing graph skip the write entirely. Setting the mode right > where the fetch happens seemed like the best way to make this more > explicit and easy to reason about. Ah, right, the second condition is what I forgot about. Patrick

Kristofer Karlsson wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Mon, 5 Oct 2026 at 08:27, Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will include these numbers in the cover letter of the reroll, > > or do you think it makes more sense to also have them in the commit > > message? > > I think it makes sense to have it as part of the commit message. Will do! > > However, I could change it to use status != REF_STATUS_NONE -- > > those are the only two statuses we can get so both would work, > > but I guess which one is best depends on what kind of new statuses > > could be added in the future. > > Okay, makes sense. I'd aim to be as defensive as possible, and defensive > here probably means that we should err on the side of covering too many > commits rather than covering not enough. And that's basically what > you're already doing anyway. > > I think having a short comment that explains this would help though. Agreed, will add a code comment + keep using REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW As you say, it makes sense to skip as few refs as possible here. I will also add a test case for shallow to prove that the check is important. Thanks, Kristofer

gitgitgadget · 2026-10-07T09:20:30Z

Patrick Steinhardt wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 09:46:32AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Kristofer Karlsson <[email protected]> > > When fetch.writeCommitGraph was introduced in > > 50f26bd035 (fetch: add fetch.writeCommitGraph config > setting, 2019-09-02), Tiny nit, not worth a reroll and something I missed in the first round: it's rather uncustomary to have this commit stand out like this, we typically have it embedded in the free-flowing text. > the stated goal was to stay updated with the latest commits after > fetching new objects. The implementation used > write_commit_graph_reachable() because it was the only API available, > but two things have changed since then: > > 1. write_commit_graph() was added, and it accepts an explicit set of > commits as seeds, enabling more targeted commit-graph updates. > > 2. The ref-scanning callback add_ref_to_set() became more expensive > in > 630cd5194e (commit-graph.c: peel refs in 'add_ref_to_set', > 2020-07-22) Likewise. > when it started to validate the refs against the odb > for correctness. On a repository with many refs, this makes the > full reachable scan unnecessarily costly for a targeted fetch. > > Optimize the commit-graph write by using only the newly updated refs > as seeds instead of scanning all refs after every fetch. To keep > this change small, skip the optimization for multi-remote fetches > (since that would require propagating the set of refs across process > boundaries). > > Since do_fetch() already knows which refs were updated, collect them > into an oidset and then pass them directly to write_commit_graph(). > fetch always writes the commit-graph in split mode, so this adds a > new layer on top of the existing chain rather than replacing it: > close_reachable() walks from the updated tips and stops at commits > already present in the graph, so the new layer only contains the > newly fetched history, and commits covered by the existing layers > remain covered. This relies on split mode; a non-split write would > replace the graph with just the closure of the seeds. The part about split commit graphs is important to point out here, as this is what we rely on to make this whole infra even work. The other parts about how we collect the object IDs feels overly verbose though, as you're basically just explaining the diff without providing much context. > The reachability closure also covers auto-followed tags, since their > targets are reachable from the fetched tips that caused them to be > auto-followed. This piece of information feels a bit random to me. Tags aren't even part of the commit graph, are they? And for auto-followed tags we'd of course naturally cover the commits they point to, but that's just business as usual and nothing that we specifically had to make sure keeps on working, right?. So I wonder why this is explicitly being pointed out now. > Refs that are rejected because they would require changes to > .git/shallow are skipped, just like store_updated_refs() does. Their > objects are received but their history is incomplete, so walking from > them would make the commit-graph write fail. And this bordering on the line of getting too verbose, as well. You already explain this in code with a comment already, so you're basically just repeating that. > diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c > index 533fdfe7d8..574c361530 100644 > --- a/builtin/fetch.c > +++ b/builtin/fetch.c > @@ -1903,10 +1903,34 @@ out: > return retcode; > } > > +static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map) > +{ > + struct ref *rm; > + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) { > + struct commit *commit; > + /* > + * Like store_updated_refs(), skip shallow-rejected refs: > + * they are not stored, and their history is incomplete. > + */ Okay. It's unclear why the reference to `store_updated_refs()` exists here, as it doesn't seem to give me any useful context. But the other part about why we skip this is helpful. > diff --git a/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh b/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > index f323ceebd2..624bd124be 100755 > --- a/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > +++ b/t/t5537-fetch-shallow.sh > @@ -135,6 +135,34 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch that requires changes in .git/shallow is filtered' ' > ) > ' > > +test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph skips refs that require changes in .git/shallow' ' > + git clone --no-local --depth=2 .git shallow-graph && > + ( > + cd shallow-graph && > + git checkout --orphan no-shallow && > + commit no-shallow > + ) && Can't we instead: git -C shallow-graph checkout --orphan no-shallow && test_commit -C shallow-graph no-shallow > + git init notshallow-graph && > + git -C notshallow-graph -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true \ > + fetch ../shallow-graph/.git "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/shallow/*" && > + ( > + cd shallow-graph && > + commit no-shallow-2 > + ) && And likewise, `test_commit -C shallow-graph no-shallow-2`? > + rejected=$(git -C shallow-graph rev-parse main) && > + ( > + cd notshallow-graph && > + git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true \ > + fetch ../shallow-graph/.git "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/shallow/*" && > + git for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >actual.refs && > + echo refs/remotes/shallow/no-shallow >expect.refs && > + test_cmp expect.refs actual.refs && > + test-tool read-graph commit-info shallow/no-shallow && > + test_expect_code 1 \ > + test-tool read-graph commit-info $rejected 2>/dev/null Okay. So if I understand correctly, this test here verifies that we can read the non-shallow commit from the graph, but not the shallow one. Makes sense. > + ) > +' Thanks! Patrick

Kristofer Karlsson wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 at 08:39, Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 09:46:32AM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote: > > From: Kristofer Karlsson <[email protected]> > > > > When fetch.writeCommitGraph was introduced in > > > > 50f26bd035 (fetch: add fetch.writeCommitGraph config > > setting, 2019-09-02), > > Tiny nit, not worth a reroll and something I missed in the first round: > it's rather uncustomary to have this commit stand out like this, we > typically have it embedded in the free-flowing text. Will fix, since I am rerolling anyway. (And will keep in mind for the future.) > > when it started to validate the refs against the odb > > for correctness. On a repository with many refs, this makes the > > full reachable scan unnecessarily costly for a targeted fetch. > > > > Optimize the commit-graph write by using only the newly updated refs > > as seeds instead of scanning all refs after every fetch. To keep > > this change small, skip the optimization for multi-remote fetches > > (since that would require propagating the set of refs across process > > boundaries). > > > > Since do_fetch() already knows which refs were updated, collect them > > into an oidset and then pass them directly to write_commit_graph(). > > fetch always writes the commit-graph in split mode, so this adds a > > new layer on top of the existing chain rather than replacing it: > > close_reachable() walks from the updated tips and stops at commits > > already present in the graph, so the new layer only contains the > > newly fetched history, and commits covered by the existing layers > > remain covered. This relies on split mode; a non-split write would > > replace the graph with just the closure of the seeds. > > The part about split commit graphs is important to point out here, as > this is what we rely on to make this whole infra even work. The other > parts about how we collect the object IDs feels overly verbose though, > as you're basically just explaining the diff without providing much > context. Will simplify and shorten it significantly. Something like this: This relies on the commit-graph write being additive, keeping the commits that are already in the graph. fetch already operates in this mode (COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT) and now that becomes required for correctness. Without that mode, the write would replace the commit-graph and lose other commits. > > The reachability closure also covers auto-followed tags, since their > > targets are reachable from the fetched tips that caused them to be > > auto-followed. > > This piece of information feels a bit random to me. Tags aren't even > part of the commit graph, are they? And for auto-followed tags we'd > of course naturally cover the commits they point to, but that's just > business as usual and nothing that we specifically had to make sure > keeps on working, right?. So I wonder why this is explicitly being > pointed out now. That's fair -- I added it because I wanted to convince myself that auto-followed tags don't need special handling, but as you say, their commits are reachable from the fetched tips anyway. Will remove. > > Refs that are rejected because they would require changes to > > .git/shallow are skipped, just like store_updated_refs() does. Their > > objects are received but their history is incomplete, so walking from > > them would make the commit-graph write fail. > > And this bordering on the line of getting too verbose, as well. You > already explain this in code with a comment already, so you're basically > just repeating that. Yes, removing this. > > > diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c > > index 533fdfe7d8..574c361530 100644 > > --- a/builtin/fetch.c > > +++ b/builtin/fetch.c > > @@ -1903,10 +1903,34 @@ out: > > return retcode; > > } > > > > +static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map) > > +{ > > + struct ref *rm; > > + for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) { > > + struct commit *commit; > > + /* > > + * Like store_updated_refs(), skip shallow-rejected refs: > > + * they are not stored, and their history is incomplete. > > + */ > > Okay. It's unclear why the reference to `store_updated_refs()` exists > here, as it doesn't seem to give me any useful context. But the other > part about why we skip this is helpful. Right, I will simplify the text here a bit to: Shallow-rejected refs are not stored and their history is incomplete, so skip them. The reference was meant to point out that store_updated_refs() skips these refs as well (which is also why the full reachable scan never runs into them), but that is indirect, so best to just remove it. > > + git clone --no-local --depth=2 .git shallow-graph && > > + ( > > + cd shallow-graph && > > + git checkout --orphan no-shallow && > > + commit no-shallow > > + ) && > > Can't we instead: > > git -C shallow-graph checkout --orphan no-shallow && > test_commit -C shallow-graph no-shallow Sometimes the blocks help for clarity, but this is short enough anyway so you're right it's not needed. I will update to that, using --no-tag, since the fetch would otherwise auto-follow the new tags and they would show up in the for-each-ref check. > > > + git init notshallow-graph && > > + git -C notshallow-graph -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true \ > > + fetch ../shallow-graph/.git "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/shallow/*" && > > + ( > > + cd shallow-graph && > > + commit no-shallow-2 > > + ) && > > And likewise, `test_commit -C shallow-graph no-shallow-2`? Yes, will fix that too. Thanks, Kristofer

gitgitgadget · 2026-10-08T07:30:25Z

Patrick Steinhardt wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Wed, Oct 07, 2026 at 02:22:57PM +0000, Kristofer Karlsson via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Kristofer Karlsson <[email protected]> > > When fetch.writeCommitGraph was introduced in 50f26bd035 (fetch: add > fetch.writeCommitGraph config setting, 2019-09-02), the stated goal > was to stay updated with the latest commits after fetching new > objects. The implementation used write_commit_graph_reachable() > because it was the only API available, but two things have changed > since then: > > 1. write_commit_graph() was added, and it accepts an explicit set of > commits as seeds, enabling more targeted commit-graph updates. > > 2. The ref-scanning callback add_ref_to_set() became more expensive > in 630cd5194e (commit-graph.c: peel refs in 'add_ref_to_set', > 2020-07-22) when it started to validate the refs against the odb > for correctness. On a repository with many refs, this makes the > full reachable scan unnecessarily costly for a targeted fetch. > > Optimize the commit-graph write by using only the newly updated refs > as seeds instead of scanning all refs after every fetch. To keep > this change small, skip the optimization for multi-remote fetches > (since that would require propagating the set of refs across process > boundaries). > > This relies on the commit-graph write being additive, keeping the > commits that are already in the graph. fetch already operates in > this mode (COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT) and now that becomes > required for correctness. Without that mode, the write would > replace the commit-graph and lose other commits. Everything from here... > After fetch_one() returns, call prepare_commit_graph() (which is > made non-static by this commit) to determine the graph-write mode: > > - If no commit-graph exists yet, fall back to the full reachable > scan so the first graph creation covers all refs. > > - If a commit-graph exists and the fetch updated at least one ref, > write incrementally using only the new refs as seeds. > > - If a commit-graph exists but the fetch is a no-op, skip the > commit-graph write entirely. > > - For the multi-remote path (fetch --all), where child processes > do the actual fetching, fall back to the full reachable scan. > > Full commit-graph coverage of all refs remains the responsibility > of "git maintenance", "git gc" and "git commit-graph write". > Regular Git operations may trigger "git maintenance run --auto", > which periodically rebuilds the commit-graph from all reachable > refs. ... to here is still overly verbose, especially the last paragraph. But I haven't been complaining about that in the last round, and the rest reads significantly better now. So this is not worth another reroll, if you ask me. Other than that I'm happy with this series now, thanks! Patrick

Kristofer Karlsson wrote on the Git mailing list (how to reply to this email):

On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 08:01, Patrick Steinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Everything from here... > > > After fetch_one() returns, call prepare_commit_graph() (which is > > made non-static by this commit) to determine the graph-write mode: > > > > - If no commit-graph exists yet, fall back to the full reachable > > scan so the first graph creation covers all refs. > > > > - If a commit-graph exists and the fetch updated at least one ref, > > write incrementally using only the new refs as seeds. > > > > - If a commit-graph exists but the fetch is a no-op, skip the > > commit-graph write entirely. > > > > - For the multi-remote path (fetch --all), where child processes > > do the actual fetching, fall back to the full reachable scan. > > > > Full commit-graph coverage of all refs remains the responsibility > > of "git maintenance", "git gc" and "git commit-graph write". > > Regular Git operations may trigger "git maintenance run --auto", > > which periodically rebuilds the commit-graph from all reachable > > refs. > > ... to here is still overly verbose, especially the last paragraph. But > I haven't been complaining about that in the last round, and the rest > reads significantly better now. So this is not worth another reroll, if > you ask me. > > Other than that I'm happy with this series now, thanks! I thought the last paragraph was useful for motivating the change, but I agree it could be written more compactly. Will change it if I need to reroll anyway, but will keep it as-is otherwise. Thanks for reviewing this! Kristofer

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up @@
     	return retcode;
     }
+    static void collect_updated_tips(struct oidset *tips, struct ref *ref_map)
+    {
+    	struct ref *rm;
+    	for (rm = ref_map; rm; rm = rm->next) {
+    		struct commit *commit;
+    		/*
+    		 * Shallow-rejected refs are not stored and their history
+    		 * is incomplete, so skip them.
+    		 */
+    		if (rm->status == REF_STATUS_REJECT_SHALLOW)
+    			continue;
+    		if (is_null_oid(&rm->old_oid))
+    			continue;
+    		if (rm->peer_ref &&
+    		    oideq(&rm->old_oid, &rm->peer_ref->old_oid))
+    			continue;
+    		commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(the_repository,
+    							&rm->old_oid, 1);
+    		if (commit)
+    			oidset_insert(tips, &commit->object.oid);
+    	}
+    }
     static int do_fetch(struct transport *transport,
     		    struct refspec *rs,
     		    const struct fetch_config *config,
-    		    struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options)
+    		    struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options,
+    		    struct oidset *updated_tips)
     {
     	struct ref_transaction *transaction = NULL;
     	struct ref *ref_map = NULL;
@@ Expand Down Expand Up / @@ -2111,6 +2135,8 @@ static int do_fetch(struct transport *transport, @@
     	commit_fetch_head(&fetch_head);
+    	collect_updated_tips(updated_tips, ref_map);
     	if (set_upstream) {
     		struct branch *branch = branch_get("HEAD");
     		struct ref *rm;
@@ Expand Down Expand Up @@
     static int fetch_one(struct remote *remote, int argc, const char **argv,
     		     int prune_tags_ok, int use_stdin_refspecs,
     		     const struct fetch_config *config,
-    		     struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options)
+    		     struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options,
+    		     struct oidset *updated_tips)
     {
     	struct refspec rs = REFSPEC_INIT_FETCH(the_hash_algo);
     	int i;
@@ Expand Down Expand Up @@
     	sigchain_push_common(unlock_pack_on_signal);
     	atexit(unlock_pack_atexit);
     	sigchain_push(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
-    	exit_code = do_fetch(gtransport, &rs, config, filter_options);
+    	exit_code = do_fetch(gtransport, &rs, config, filter_options,
+    			     updated_tips);
     	sigchain_pop(SIGPIPE);
     	refspec_clear(&rs);
     	transport_disconnect(gtransport);
@@ Expand Down Expand Up / @@ -2535,6 +2563,12 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, @@
     	int negotiate_only = 0;
     	int porcelain = 0;
     	int i;
+    	enum {
+    		GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE,
+    		GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS,
+    		GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP,
+    	} graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_REACHABLE;
+    	struct oidset updated_tips = OIDSET_INIT;
     	struct option builtin_fetch_options[] = {
     		OPT__VERBOSITY(&verbosity),
@@ Expand Down Expand Up / @@ -2822,7 +2856,13 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, @@
     		}
     		trace2_region_enter("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository);
     		result = fetch_one(remote, argc, argv, prune_tags_ok, stdin_refspecs,
-    				   &config, &filter_options);
+    				   &config, &filter_options, &updated_tips);
+    		if (prepare_commit_graph(the_repository)) {
+    			if (oidset_size(&updated_tips))
+    				graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS;
+    			else
+    				graph_write_mode = GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP;
+    		}
     		trace2_region_leave("fetch", "fetch-one", the_repository);
     	} else {
     		int max_children = max_jobs;
@@ Expand Down Expand Up / @@ -2899,11 +2939,21 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, @@
     		if (progress)
     			commit_graph_flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS;
-    		trace2_region_enter("fetch", "write-commit-graph", the_repository);
-    		write_commit_graph_reachable(the_repository->objects->sources,
-    					     commit_graph_flags,
-    					     NULL);
-    		trace2_region_leave("fetch", "write-commit-graph", the_repository);
+    		if (graph_write_mode != GRAPH_WRITE_SKIP) {
+    			trace2_region_enter("fetch", "write-commit-graph",
+    					    the_repository);
+    			if (graph_write_mode == GRAPH_WRITE_TIPS)
+    				write_commit_graph(
+    					the_repository->objects->sources,
+    					NULL, &updated_tips,
+    					commit_graph_flags, NULL);
+    			else
+    				write_commit_graph_reachable(
+    					the_repository->objects->sources,
+    					commit_graph_flags, NULL);
+    			trace2_region_leave("fetch", "write-commit-graph",
+    					    the_repository);
+    		}
     	}
     	if (enable_auto_gc) {
@@ Expand All / @@ -2927,6 +2977,7 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, @@
     	}
      cleanup:
+    	oidset_clear(&updated_tips);
     	string_list_clear(&list, 0);
     	list_objects_filter_release(&filter_options);
     	return result;
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up @@
      * On the first invocation, this function attempts to load the commit
      * graph if the repository is configured to have one.
      */
-    static struct commit_graph *prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r)
+    struct commit_graph *prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r)
     {
     	struct odb_source *source;
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up / @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct string_list; @@
     char *get_commit_graph_filename(struct odb_source *source);
     char *get_commit_graph_chain_filename(struct odb_source *source);
+    struct commit_graph *prepare_commit_graph(struct repository *r);
     int open_commit_graph(const char *graph_file, int *fd, struct stat *st);
     int open_commit_graph_chain(const char *chain_file, int *fd, struct stat *st,
     			    const struct git_hash_algo *hash_algo);
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up / @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@ @@
     #include "test-tool.h"
     #include "commit-graph.h"
+    #include "commit.h"
+    #include "hex.h"
+    #include "object-name.h"
     #include "repository.h"
     #include "odb.h"
     #include "bloom.h"
@@ Expand Down Expand Up / @@ -91,7 +94,25 @@ int cmd__read_graph(int argc, const char **argv) @@
     		dump_graph_info(graph);
     	else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "bloom-filters"))
     		dump_graph_bloom_filters(graph);
-    	else {
+    	else if (!strcmp(argv[1], "commit-info")) {
+    		int i;
+    		for (i = 2; i < argc; i++) {
+    			struct object_id oid;
+    			struct commit *c;
+    			if (repo_get_oid(the_repository, argv[i], &oid))
+    				die("not a valid object name: '%s'", argv[i]);
+    			c = lookup_commit_in_graph(the_repository, &oid);
+    			if (!c) {
+    				fprintf(stderr, "%s: not in graph\n", argv[i]);
+    				ret = 1;
+    				continue;
+    			}
+    			printf("%s generation %"PRIuMAX"\n",
+    			       oid_to_hex(&oid),
+    			       (uintmax_t)commit_graph_generation(c));
+    		}
+    	} else {
     		fprintf(stderr, "unknown sub-command: '%s'\n", argv[1]);
     		ret = 1;
     	}
@@ Expand Down @@

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up / @@ -1087,6 +1087,65 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph' ' @@
     	)
     '
+    test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph adds fetched commits incrementally' '
+    	git init incremental-source &&
+    	test_commit -C incremental-source one &&
+    	git clone incremental-source incremental-dest &&
+    	test_commit -C incremental-dest local &&
+    	git -C incremental-dest commit-graph write --reachable --split &&
+    	test_commit -C incremental-source two &&
+    	test_commit -C incremental-source three &&
+    	(
+    		cd incremental-dest &&
+    		git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin &&
+    		test-tool read-graph commit-info three two local
+    	)
+    '
+    test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph does not add unrelated commits' '
+    	git init unrelated-source &&
+    	test_commit -C unrelated-source initial &&
+    	git clone unrelated-source unrelated-dest &&
+    	git -C unrelated-dest commit-graph write --reachable --split &&
+    	test_commit -C unrelated-source fetched &&
+    	(
+    		cd unrelated-dest &&
+    		test_env GIT_TEST_COMMIT_GRAPH=0 test_commit local-only &&
+    		git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin &&
+    		test-tool read-graph commit-info fetched &&
+    		test_expect_code 1 \
+    			test-tool read-graph commit-info local-only 2>/dev/null
+    	)
+    '
+    test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph skips write on no-op fetch' '
+    	git init noop-source &&
+    	test_commit -C noop-source one &&
+    	git clone noop-source noop-dest &&
+    	git -C noop-dest commit-graph write --reachable --split &&
+    	(
+    		cd noop-dest &&
+    		GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/trace2.txt" \
+    			git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin &&
+    		test_region ! fetch write-commit-graph trace2.txt
+    	)
+    '
+    test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph falls back to reachable scan without existing graph' '
+    	git init first-graph-source &&
+    	test_commit -C first-graph-source base &&
+    	git clone first-graph-source first-graph-dest &&
+    	test_commit -C first-graph-source fetched &&
+    	(
+    		cd first-graph-dest &&
+    		test_commit local &&
+    		rm -rf .git/objects/info/commit-graphs &&
+    		rm -f .git/objects/info/commit-graph &&
+    		git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true fetch origin &&
+    		test-tool read-graph commit-info fetched local base
+    	)
+    '
     test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph with submodules' '
     	test_config_global protocol.file.allow always &&
     	git clone dups super &&
@@ Expand Down @@

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

fetch: write commit-graph using updated refs only #2239

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 2, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 2, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 7, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 7, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

-Original file line number
+Diff line change
@@ Expand Up @@
     	)
     '
+    test_expect_success 'fetch.writeCommitGraph skips refs that require changes in .git/shallow' '
+    	git clone --no-local --depth=2 .git shallow-graph &&
+    	git -C shallow-graph checkout --orphan no-shallow &&
+    	test_commit -C shallow-graph --no-tag no-shallow &&
+    	git init notshallow-graph &&
+    	git -C notshallow-graph -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true \
+    		fetch ../shallow-graph/.git "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/shallow/*" &&
+    	test_commit -C shallow-graph --no-tag no-shallow-2 &&
+    	rejected=$(git -C shallow-graph rev-parse main) &&
+    	(
+    		cd notshallow-graph &&
+    		git -c fetch.writeCommitGraph=true \
+    			fetch ../shallow-graph/.git "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/shallow/*" &&
+    		git for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" >actual.refs &&
+    		echo refs/remotes/shallow/no-shallow >expect.refs &&
+    		test_cmp expect.refs actual.refs &&
+    		test-tool read-graph commit-info shallow/no-shallow &&
+    		test_expect_code 1 \
+    			test-tool read-graph commit-info $rejected 2>/dev/null
+    	)
+    '
     test_expect_success 'fetch --update-shallow' '
     	(
     	cd shallow &&
@@ Expand Down @@

fetch: write commit-graph using updated refs only #2239

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Uh oh!

fetch: write commit-graph using updated refs only #2239

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Diff view

Diff view

There are no files selected for viewing

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gitgitgadget Bot Oct 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!