"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Scott Chacon wrote: >> > > My stance has always been that the C Git is authoritative with regards to >> > > formats and protocols. ??It's up to Github to fix their screw-up. >> > >> > It is fixed and will be deployed soon, but really, there is no reason >> > to be snippy. It is a simple and minor mistake effecting very few >> > repositories (maybe 100 out of 730k) > > What is the C Git stance on these 100 repositories then? Are they > now considered corrupt? Or is 100 enough in the wild that we have > to accept the problem, just like we accept the 10664 mode issue from > "ancient" Linux? > > I would love to say "those are corrupt, sorry, fix your repository". This is why I first asked how widespread the copies of the implementation of that broken tool are. If it is only 100 and all breakages are confined to objects created at GitHub installation, and the owners of these 100 repositories are not locally creating corrupt objects with copies of broken reimplementation of git they have, I would say that we tell them to fix it, and GitHub can hopefully help them as their hosting site. -- 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