On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:18:03PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > # Irrelevant but someone should take a look
> >
> > 693
>
> To save people some time (and since i looked at it anyway), this is
> about whether "warning in tree xxx: contains zero-padded file modes:
> from fsck should be a warning or error. It is a warning now even
> though "git -c transfer.fsckobjects=true clone" treats it as an error.
> There are some discussions in the past [1] [2] about this.
The bug that caused the trees is long-fixed. There's a question of
how severity levels should be handled in transfer.fsckObjects. By
default it treats everything as a reason to reject the object. Dscho
added configurable levels a few versions ago. It may be a good idea to
tweak the defaults to something more permissive[1].
> There's also a question "And I failed to find in the documentation if
> transfer.fsckobjects could be disabled per repository, can you confirm
> it's not possible for now ?"
I don't know why it wouldn't be, though note that it won't override
the operation-specific {receive,fetch}.fsckObjects.
-Peff
[1] If we had a more permissive set of defaults, it would probably make
sense to turn on fsckObjects by default. Some of the checks are
security-relevant, like disallowing trees with ".GIT",
"../../etc/passwd", etc. Those _should_ be handled sanely by the
rest of Git, but it serves as a belt-and-suspenders check, and also
protects anybody with a buggy Git downstream from you.
GitHub has had the feature turned on for ages, with a few caveats:
- we loosened the zero-padded mode warning, because it was causing
too many false positives
- we loosened the timezone checks for the same reason; we've seen
time zones that aren't exactly 4 characters before
- we occasionally get complaints from people trying to push old
histories with bogus committer idents. Usually a missing name or
similar.
So those are the ones we'd probably need to loosen off the bat, and
they're all pretty harmless. But it would be a potential irritating
regression for somebody if they have a history with other minor
flaws, and Git suddenly starts refusing to clone it.