On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:54:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I'm not sure I buy this argument. Yes, you should not be writing > > anything else, but that does not change the fact that "fsck" will > > unceremoniously abort: > > ... > > So I think this would be a reasonable candidate (or alternatively, to > > treat EPERM on an existing file as a soft error). I am totally fine not > > to address it as part of this series, though. > > Yeah, that crossed my mind (and I agree with the conclusion). > > Listing what is left deliberately and why is still a good idea, as > that would force people to think twice before wasting effort to > convert blindly without thinking. Listing what is left behind like > "git fsck" that we know we shouldn't leave behind is even better to > mark low-hanging fruits. How do you like this one instead? > > - git fsck, when writing lost&found blobs (this probably should > be changed, but left as a low-hanging fruit for future > contributors). I think that's more accurate. :) -Peff -- 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