On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 17:19, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 13:26, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> + static int warned = 0;
> >>> + if (!warned++)
> >>> + warning("object %s cannot be read",
> >>> + sha1_to_hex(src_entry->idx.sha1));
> >>
> >> How does this handle multiple missing objects? Will it only warn for
> >> the first one?
> >
> > Yes, only the first one, so you have a bone to chase if that ever
> > happens to you. And that's good enough IMHO. Trying to warn for every
> > missing object would require extra storage per object to remember if any
> > particular object was warned for already, which is I think overkill for
> > an extremely unlikely event. Comprehensive reporting is the job of
> > fsck.
>
> Maybe add a ", run git fsck" to the message. Will still comfortably fit a line.
Maybe if this message ever gets printed often enough. Let's see if
someone will even report it before 2012, and be clueless about it. And
to be consistent, you'd have to do the same throughout the code where
this could be relevant.
Furthermore, if someone really need the additional clue, then I'm afraid
that the current fsck output won't help at all except to confuse that
person even more.
Better for people to ask for help on this list when things break due to
corruptions if they can't figure it out on their own.
Nicolas
--
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