Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > But GitHub's approach here seems to be "Meh, its fine, don't worry > > about it". > > > > Its *NOT* fine. But Avery and Junio might disagree with me. :-) > > Did I ever say it is _fine_? I thought I said "complain loudly". I apologize if I misrepresented you above. > That would at least give poor jgit users who have hit such a corrupted > object a chance to get a controlled notice and ask for help (and get an > insn to recover with filter-branch that appeared in this thread). Well, there is "complain loudly but do it anyway" and "hard stop". JGit currently has the leading '0' be a "hard stop". Because this is the fsck code running inside of the receive-pack service, validating what the user sent is isn't malformed. Its clearly malformed. This only got discovered because Mike tried to take a repository from GitHub and push it into Gerrit Code Review, where JGit's fsck routine cannot be bypassed during receive-pack. Are you suggesting JGit should change its behavior to be "complain loudly but do it anyway"? I'm open to making the code change there if that is how you think a Git implementation should behave in this case. But I don't want to do it just to match CGit's behavior, sometimes CGit can be wrong. :-) -- Shawn. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html