At 2024-05-30 12:38:49, "Patrick Steinhardt" <ps@xxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
>> >
>> >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 :)
>
>I later noticed that you extend the `unbundle_fsck_flags` in a later
>patch. With that in mind I don't think it's all that important anymore
>to merge those into the `verify_bundle_flags` as you would otherwise
>allow for weirdness. What happens for example when both `ALWAYS` and
>`FOLLOW_FETCH` are set?
>
>So feel free to ignore this advice. If you still think it's a good idea
>then the above naming looks okay to me.
With the idea of extending "--fsck-objects" support for "git bundle verify" and
"git bundle unbundle", I prefer to grouping these options together. Especially
in the "git bundle verify" scenario, adding a new parameter like
`unbundle_fsck_flags` for `bundle.c:verify_bundle` is confusing.
Xing Xin
