Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > OK, that argument makes sense. Then I wonder if more specific
> > error ignoring would be better:
> >
> > --ignore-error=already-deleted
> > --ignore-error=already-deleted,missing-mark,missing-copy-source
> >
> > I'm not really fond of turning an existing error condition that
> > exists to catch broken frontends into a generic tolerant flag.
> > But being able to selectively turn it off while leaving other
> > errors as errors isn't entirely unreasonable.
>
> I think selective loosening of consistency check makes sense very much,
> but I have been wondering if these should be command line options.
>
> The only example we saw so far is about output from one exporter. Perhaps
> it should be given to fast-import as initial set of commands ("#pragma"!)
> that describes the nature of the input file?
Yea, I briefly considered that when I added the timestamp format
option. I didn't bother because it was a single option and I figured
most frontends start git-fast-import directly. But with this being
added a "format pragrma header thingy" makes a lot of sense.
Since comments are supported we could backdoor it with #pragma or
something like that, so existing files can still be (mostly) parsed
by an earlier git-fast-import. But I wonder if that is wise given
that some classes of errors would still fail on the older import,
but would work on a newer one. Might as well just make it a proper
command that would cause an older importer to fail out of the gate.
--
Shawn.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
