Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... That will generally cause things to be inefficient > rather than wrong, and is a bug somebody working on a Git implementation > would want to fix, but probably not worth inconveniencing users by > refusing to push or fetch. > > So let's downgrade this to "info" by default, which is our setting for > "mention this when fscking, but don't ever reject, even under strict > mode". If somebody really wants to be paranoid, they can still adjust > the level using config. IIRC, I heard that every reimplementation of Git got the tree entry wrong one way or another at least once. I think this is prudent. I was almost sure that before we "unified" the codepath for normal tree reading and the one used for fsck in a mistaken way, which was fixed in this series, we were catching these anomalous mode bits, but the suspected regression is too long ago that it does not make a practical difference if it was always broken or it was broken long time ago. The risk to start complaining on existing projects is the same either way. Thanks for working on this series.
