On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 05:04:07PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > This is because if the caller set the "strict" field in "fsck_options", > > fsck warns will be automatically upgraded to errors. We should not allow > > user to specify the "--strict" flag to upgrade the fsck warnings to > > errors at current. > > This is formulated a bit curiously: it reads as if we wanted to limit > what the user can do, but what we really want to ensure is that the > `--strict` flag doesn't convert it into an error. So maybe something > like this instead of the second sentence: > > We don't (yet) want the "--strict" flag that controls this bit to > end up generating errors for such weirdly-formatted reference > contents, as we first want to assess whether this retroactive > tightening will cause issues for any tools out there. > Thanks, I will improve this in the next version. > > the legacy repository. So we add the following two fsck infos to > > I wouldn't call it "legacy" just yet, as we didn't yet decide whether > we're going to make this formatting invalid in the first place. It's > rather a test balloon. > I agree, we should drop "legacy" here. > > In current "git-fsck(1)", it will report an error when the ref content > > is bad, so we should following this to report an error to the user when > > "parse_loose_ref_contents" fails. And we add a new fsck error message > > called "badRefContent(ERROR)" to represent that a ref has a bad content. > > Okay, so this is basically porting over behaviour that git-fsck(1) > already has to `git refs verify` and should thus not cause new issues > anywhere. I think it would have made sense to do so in a first step and > then introduce the tightened rules in a separate commit. > By reading the whole comments, we'd better create a commit which ports the existing checks to "git refs verify" both for regular refs and symrefs. So, I will add more commits in the next version with the following sequences: 1. Set up the infrastructure to check the contents for refs. 2. Port existing checks in "git-fsck(1)" to "git refs verify". 3. Introduce the tightened rules. > Will we eventually remove those checks from git-fsck(1) when we adapt it > to call `git refs verify`? If so, we should likely note that in the > commit message. We should do this, as we have discussed before, "git-fsck(1)" implicitly checks some refs which makes the code hard to understand. > Coming back to my comment further up, I guess this whole block here > could be introduced in a separate commit. So the first commit introduces > the infra to check loose ref contents as an obvious step because we > simply port over rules that already exist in git-fsck(1). And the second > step could then do this retroactive tightening with the justification > you have spelt out in the commit message. Yes, it will be much more clear. So, I should not simply classify the situations by the type of refs. Thanks, Jialuo
