Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Can you spell this out more? To be clear, are you speaking as a >> reviewer or as the project maintainer? In other words, if other >> reviewers are able to settle on a design that involves a relaxed >> guarantee for fsck in this mode that they can agree on, does this >> represent a veto meaning the patch can still not go through? > > Consider it a veto over punting without making sure that we can > later come up with a solution to give such a guarantee. I am not > getting a feeling that "other reviewers" are even seeking a "relaxed > guarantee"---all I've seen in the thread is to give up any guarantee > and to hope for the best. Thank you. That makes sense. In my defense, one reason I had for being okay with dropping the connectivity check in the "lazy object" setup (at a higher level than this patch currently does it, to avoid wasted work) is that this patch series does not include the required components to do it more properly and previous discussions on list had pointed to some of those components that will arrive later (the "object size cache", which doubles as an incomplete list of promises). But that doesn't put the project in a good position because it isn't an explicitly spelled out plan. The set of other reviewers that I was hoping will weigh in at some point is the GVFS team at Microsoft. I'll write up a summary of the ideas discussed so far to try to get this unblocked. Sincerely, Jonathan
