shejialuo <shejialuo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I agree with you that it would be strange if we do not expose any > interfaces for user who are adventurous. Actually we may simply add an > option "--refs-experimental" or simply "--refs" to allow the users check > ref consistency by using "git-fsck(1)". > > I guess the concern that Patrick cares about is that we ONLY make refs > optional here, but do not provide options for other checks. It will be > strange from this perspective. I do not care about strange all that much. I however care about new complexity in the code, complexity that is not taken advantage of and is not exercised. You said > From the development of this series, we can know the main problem is > that fsck error message is highly coupled with the object checks. and even if it is true and we have problem in fsck code paths, we cannot see if _your_ solution to that problem is a good one without having the code that exercises your additional code. But if "git refs verify" does exercise all the new code paths (and the refactored code that existed before this series, sitting now in different places), then I do not have to worry about it. My question was primarily to extract "even though we do not wire this up to fsck, we already have another code paths that uses all these changes" out of you. Thanks.
