On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 10:46 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:53:32AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > - if (!src->data)
> > + if (!src->data) {
> > + if (src_entry->preferred_base) {
> > + /*
> > + * Those objects are not included in the
> > + * resulting pack. Be resilient and ignore
> > + * them if they can't be read, in case the
> > + * pack could be created nevertheless.
> > + */
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > die("object %s cannot be read",
> > sha1_to_hex(src_entry->idx.sha1));
> > + }
>
> By converting this die() into a silent return, are we losing a place
> where git might previously have alerted a user to corruption? In this
> case, we can continue the operation without the object, but if we have
> detected corruption, letting the user know as soon as possible is
> probably a good idea.
>
> In other words, should this instead be:
>
> warning("unable to read preferred base object: %s", ...);
> return 0;
>
> Or will some other part of the code already complained to stderr?
>
> -Peff
Agreed. If it broke we should probably tell the user--even if we can't
do much useful about it other than attempt to recover by continuing.
--
-Drew Northup N1XIM
AKA RvnPhnx on OPN
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59
--
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