Re: propagating repo corruption across clone

[Jeff Mitchell <jeffrey.mitchell@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> The difference between --mirror and no --mirror is a red herring.
> You may want to ask Jeff Mitchell to remove the mention of it; it
> only adds to the confusion without helping users.  If you made
> byte-for-byte copy of corrupt repository, it wouldn't make any
> difference if the first "checkout" notices it.

Hi,

Several days ago I had actually already updated the post to indicate
that my testing methodology was incorrect as a result of mixing up
--no-hardlinks and --no-local, and pointed to this thread.

I will say that we did see corrupted repos on the downstream mirrors.
I don't have an explanation for it, but have not been able to
reproduce it either. My only potential guess (untested) is that
perhaps when the corruption was detected the clone aborted but left
the objects already transferred locally. Again, untested -- I mention
it only because it's my only potential explanation  :-)

> To be paranoid, you may want to set transfer.fsckObjects to true,
> perhaps in your ~/.gitconfig.

Interesting; I'd known about receive.fsckObjects but not
transfer/fetch. Thanks for the pointer.