Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: >> I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum >> mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would >> still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long >> as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if >> we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot >> recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be >> skipped during the recovery process? > > It's the inconsistency in that for(;;) loop. If we are going to > salvage as many objects as we could, should we do "continue;" instead > of "break;" when unpack_entry() or check_sha1_signature() fails? I do not think making things worse for the sake of "consistency" is a good sell ;-). How hard would it be to make it also continue when these report a corruption? -- 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