Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So I dunno. That is far from exhaustive, but it does seem like most > cases should assume the presence of the file. You are right. I should have considered that "we got a random object-name looking thing and we do not care if it does not exist" is a very narrow minority case. Most of the object names we deal with come from local repository traversal and unless things like the "fsck-promisor" comes into the picture, we should always have them available locally. > But it may not be that big a deal. For the most part, all bets are off > in a corrupt repo. My main concern is just that we do not want the > corruption to spread or to make it harder for us to recover from (and > that includes allowing us to delete or overwrite other data that would > otherwise be forbidden, which is what's happening in the fetch case). Absolutely. Thanks.
