Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] index-pack: fsck honor checks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jonathan,

On 26 Jan 2024, at 17:13, Jonathan Tan wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>      ++--fsck-objects[=<msg-id>=<severity>...]::
>>>      ++	Die if the pack contains broken objects. If the pack contains a tree
>>>      ++	pointing to a .gitmodules blob that does not exist, prints the hash of
>>>      ++	that blob (for the caller to check) after the hash that goes into the
>>>      ++	name of the pack/idx file (see "Notes").
>>
>> Not a new problem bit I have to wonder what happens if the pack
>> contains many trees that point at different blobs for ".gitmodules"
>> path and many of these blobs are not included in the packfile?  Will
>> the caller receive all of these blob object names so that they can
>> be verified?  The reference to the "Notes" only refer to the fact
>> that usually a single hash value that is used in constructing the
>> name of the packfile "pack-<Hashvalue>.pack" is emitted to the
>> standard output, which is not wrong per se, but does not help
>> readers very much wrt to understanding this.
>>
>> [jc: dragging JTan into the thread, as this comes from his 5476e1ef
>> (fetch-pack: print and use dangling .gitmodules, 2021-02-22)].
>
> Ah...I can see how that documentation isn't clear. The intention of that
> commit is to check every link to a .gitmodules blob. The tests perhaps
> should have been written with 2 .gitmodules blobs (in separate commits),
> but I think the production code works: I tried changing the test to have
> 2 commits each with their own .gitmodules blob, and error messages were
> printed for both blobs.

Thanks for clarifying! Would you mind providing a patch to revise the wording
here to make it clearer? I would try but I feel like I might get the wording
wrong.
>
> (If someone changes that test, e.g. to have 2 blobs, the ">h" in the
> "configure_exclusion" invocations look superfluous and is perhaps a
> copy-and-paste error from other tests that needed the hash later.)

thanks
John




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux