Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Cc'ing the author of that commit for his comments. I took a look. I'm not sure why I made the assumption that should_include_obj() would only ever be called on objects in the repo - in process_tree() in list-objects.c, the case of a missing object is handled only after should_include_obj() is called. Looking back at the earliest mention of this on the list [1] I don't see any clues either. In any case, the fix is probably to change it so that should_include_obj() returns 0 if the object is absent. Having said that, I couldn't come up with a test that exercises this failure mode. Nik, do you have a minimal repo that reproduces this error? If yes, if you could contribute a test in the form of the 'after fetching descendants of non-promisor commits, gc works' test in t5616, that would help prevent regressions in the future. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/fb2c202591b466eea33b4585e47b70e9086603bb.1729549127.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/
