Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I am trying to see if an index-pack with slight modification would be a >> good replacement for verify-pack. > ... > index-pack _could_ be a replacement for verify-pack. It certainly can > validate a pack since it is its purpose, possibly faster than > verify-pack. You'd still have to compare the existing pack index > against the one index-pack creates without overwriting that original > index, taking into accound index version differences, etc. We already know index-pack is a lot faster when you have a lot of deep deltas, as it works from a base to its immediate delta children while pinning that base, as opposed to verify-pack that verifies each and every object in the pack in the index order, inflating and then applying potentially long delta chains repeatedly---the only thing that could be helping it right now is the in-core delta base cache. > However index-pack won't tell you what is broken in the pack when > corruptions are to be found. Yes, but at that point, you are pretty much lost anyway, as the only thing you can do to salvage salvageable parts of the broken pack, if you still trust its associated .idx file, is to walk the table of contents and ask for each individual object; knowing where the .pack or .idx is broken with the current verify-pack does not help you very much. -- 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