From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Correctly handle transient files in shared repositories Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20160111220603.GD21131@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160111213801.GB21131@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, Yaroslav Halchenko , SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 11 23:06:15 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aIkbN-00052l-T9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:06:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759837AbcAKWGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:08 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51673 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1759567AbcAKWGH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 16501 invoked by uid 102); 11 Jan 2016 22:06:05 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 6297 invoked by uid 107); 11 Jan 2016 22:06:23 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:23 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:06:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:54:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I'm not sure I buy this argument. Yes, you should not be writing > > anything else, but that does not change the fact that "fsck" will > > unceremoniously abort: > > ... > > So I think this would be a reasonable candidate (or alternatively, to > > treat EPERM on an existing file as a soft error). I am totally fine not > > to address it as part of this series, though. > > Yeah, that crossed my mind (and I agree with the conclusion). > > Listing what is left deliberately and why is still a good idea, as > that would force people to think twice before wasting effort to > convert blindly without thinking. Listing what is left behind like > "git fsck" that we know we shouldn't leave behind is even better to > mark low-hanging fruits. How do you like this one instead? > > - git fsck, when writing lost&found blobs (this probably should > be changed, but left as a low-hanging fruit for future > contributors). I think that's more accurate. :) -Peff