At 2024-05-28 20:03:25, "Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@xxxxxx> wrote:
>On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:41:55PM +0000, Xing Xin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>[snip]
>> diff --git a/bundle.h b/bundle.h
>> index 021adbdcbb3..cfa9daddda6 100644
>> --- a/bundle.h
>> +++ b/bundle.h
>> @@ -30,6 +30,11 @@ int create_bundle(struct repository *r, const char *path,
>> int argc, const char **argv, struct strvec *pack_options,
>> int version);
>>
>> +enum unbundle_fsck_flags {
>> + UNBUNDLE_FSCK_NEVER = 0,
>> + UNBUNDLE_FSCK_ALWAYS,
>> +};
>> +
>> enum verify_bundle_flags {
>> VERIFY_BUNDLE_VERBOSE = (1 << 0),
>> VERIFY_BUNDLE_QUIET = (1 << 1),
>
>Wouldn't this have been a natural fit for the new flag, e.g. via
>something like `VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK`?
It makes sense to me. Currently, verify_bundle_flags controls the amount
of information displayed when checking a bundle's prerequisites. The
newly added unbundle_fsck_flags is designed to check for broken objects
during the unbundle process, which is essentially a form of bundle
verification. I believe we should extend some object verification
capabilities to the git bundle verify command as well, perhaps by adding
a --fsck-objects option.
With this in mind, I support adding new options to verify_bundle_flags.
Since bundle.c:unbundle needs to combine multiple options, we must
define new options using bitwise shifting:
enum verify_bundle_flags {
VERIFY_BUNDLE_VERBOSE = (1 << 0),
VERIFY_BUNDLE_QUIET = (1 << 1),
VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK_OBJECTS_ALWAYS = (1 << 2),
VERIFY_BUNDLE_FSCK_OBJECTS_FOLLOW_FETCH = (1 << 3),
};
How about the naming? I'm not very good at naming :)
Xing Xin
