Setting a Git version 2.44 config pack.allowPackReuse to multi causes GitHub Desktop pushes to error

[remlapmot]

The problem

I think this is caused by a conflict between the Git I have installed (which is the latest Git version 2.44.0) and the version of Git within GitHub Desktop (which I believe is a bit older).

When I set the new feature in 2.44.0

git config --global pack.allowPackReuse multi

Pushes with GitHub Desktop fail with the message:

The remote disconnected. Check your internet connection and try again.

See screenshot below.

Whereas pushing from the command line works.

When I set this back to the default

git config --global pack.allowPackReuse true

pushing works again as expected in GitHub Desktop.

(Setting pack.allowPackReuse to single also results in the same error message.)

I guess the simple answer is don't use features which are in a version of Git later than the version of Git within the GitHub Desktop app itself?

Release version

3.3.9

Operating system

macOS Sonoma 14.3.1

Steps to reproduce the behavior

No response

Log files

No response

Screenshots

No response

Additional context

No response

[steveward]

@remlapmot thanks for reporting this! I took a look at reproducing this just to confirm the underlying error:

2024-02-28T16:06:07.532Z - error: [ui] `git -c credential.helper= push origin main:main --progress` exited with an unexpected code: 1.
stderr:
fatal: bad boolean config value 'multi' for 'pack.allowpackreuse'
fatal: the remote end hung up unexpectedly
send-pack: unexpected disconnect while reading sideband packet
fatal: the remote end hung up unexpectedly
error: failed to push some refs to 'https://github.com/steveward/test-branch.git'

(The error was parsed as 4: The remote disconnected. Check your Internet connection and try again.)

I don't have a firm timeline for when we'll update to v2.44 from v2.39, but I'll bring this up for discussion in our next team sync.

[remlapmot]

Thanks very much

[sergiou87]

We can't fix the error (until we upgrade git to v2.44 or newer) but at least the error we show is more useful thanks to #18292

[remlapmot]

Thanks very much