From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40951FB0A for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 16:42:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731357AbgLCQjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:39:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60294 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731337AbgLCQjV (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:39:21 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x544.google.com (mail-ed1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::544]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DCA2C061A4E for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x544.google.com with SMTP id b73so2731160edf.13 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 08:38:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k1tBV2zWNr4wt37hZ8mr2N373eTVulTbvVlFZxTmuvc=; b=dW9BZWz1cgLJbU8zK6nM3em+ZPQzgv/Uh+rY/6qChdHkuO2RYZkjf71WPKzcibuVpF QX8imugheZ+JWLaDxXD9oy7UKtbQdo1DkuAv5pBuTI8UxY6G4PH25dckToVlEoNPj9n/ jltdz3X1o7T6UHNfzNXVfBOTies2juVgPUbG5VcHZR6iJNavCX6ds7dAEyxpbnkTZ8sT kAmfJ0T/zVnpsSwXbRvTgZi1dJmFJYMxL2DWDnowplUlPc10fkwbB/ezSQbksfuPXETm hsWVZ8kLkhxE5/NI7mO5fHYtaduhmNxv6R4C7WCSZ/dix3BzDGH02EfOtRt+4gXPyr/E mnNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k1tBV2zWNr4wt37hZ8mr2N373eTVulTbvVlFZxTmuvc=; b=Nr8YCbAL4RHtD8JLD6wKWwrlGu0UGOBqDnxsdllFK0gn3weMAR8i4dqwR+aJ/yfGIO bgKfaTDHC8InX4d+zRQFvP4oNN95AGRjkWLWZmKFK4BlKUdrQrlGtxTlH4Y/qf7XFCrx 195sh0Vf6D7KSHhyQtJKEDq5SHufQfW4tNmAJUnag+rXzAX+5y4LpHDoFu0z4ua6hToV OLKPgLYtc9Q/Oc9bWeTCKHab0BlSFOndQnCdM7tIsaA2vm9AiS9ovlXyeif4ncJOOgpm 2SBtyT5I7idGiVi9s0VIEzYMY5CkjC/opmg0QhHjJ9WuBG8JxZPhnsDWCKR9SStm1eE5 XZsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZJ44mu0kwqfah3nQpzfL5H1g8UNEtrMkzYjnx1RNpJjjMguPK NvYvZmCM/vCv6Jm3CB/pbro= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxg05xJ87M3zp0UhppcJhvympd97IVVunfdet8MwA8efmX+eoFQMAQoyhQ6Xt2bfHG4vXV1Eg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1c8a:: with SMTP id cy10mr3595837edb.151.1607013514231; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 08:38:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (i116144.upc-i.chello.nl. [62.195.116.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d1sm1511243edd.59.2020.12.03.08.38.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Dec 2020 08:38:33 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m . carlson" , Eric Sunshine , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] make "mktag" use fsck_tag() References: <20201126012854.399-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20201126222257.5629-1-avarab@gmail.com> <87zh2xvny6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.4.13 In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:38:32 +0100 Message-ID: <87h7p2vo8n.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 02 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 26 2020, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: >>> >>>> Now a non-RFC. I went for the approach I suggested in >>>> <87r1ognv4b.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> of just having fsck_tag() able to >>>> optionally tell us about its parsed tag/type, thus avoiding any need >>>> for a custom parser in mktag.c. Hopefully I've addressed the rest of >>>> the feedback, range-diff below. >>> >>> Ping @ Jeff & brian: you said you wanted this in one shape or another, >>> so mind seeing if the v2 looks good to you?:) >>> >>> Junio didn't pick it up for the "What's Cooking" sent out recently, >>> hopefully some reviewer ACK/NACK will help move it forward. Thanks! >> >> True. I don't want to queue too many topics on 'seen', only to end >> up with a pile of patches that haven't been reviewed adequately and >> cannot move forward. > > So, now I've seen all of them. > > There were some minor things in the earlier part I commented on, and > if I am not mistaken, a new check, "body must not begin with a blank > line", should not be added at all, which would affect 08/10. > > I am not sure how much longer we want to retain the .extra level of > checks that are more strict than those of fsck. If we decide that > it is not worth it to forbid new object headers, we may be able to > lose 08/10 altogether. > > Other than the above, the series mostly looked well done. Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for all the feedback, and that I don't have a v3 ready now, but will submit one soon-ish. FWIW the header-body newline thing wasn't something I was trying to sneak in, I went wrong in my testing somewhere and thought it was a bug under mktag. Will test for that, remove that check or whatever as appropriate. Thanks for the review.