From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3140A20450 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:09:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751165AbdKAGJl (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 02:09:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64549 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716AbdKAGJk (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 02:09:40 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818379917A; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 02:09:39 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=3r1cH2I76s13Zt4wZkx/SSNcZIw=; b=n405Yr1EfXUBR7VXhHA8 7+9rIlpkT/6CoBwhFxdP/D8Eq0xwXI3vTu+SjPUXHq3me72eJoMiCuvhIpmPPUHc BlvgQcjfp/myyZSGSHaU9rSwjwqgI8usPQpQlN5TO3RvQjjwcvXQhiuPU2gDlbIb rvW0wZrPqqr7dNJdHH/45Lc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=K1JF4dscIhxOPKbQ/5EFUVxDz2+uWuYsaRNpcz6Ko3b89R UCMiHGs45nHtECjTz0YxI1sBec9ik0FAXsk4kMw7wiwgfUQeC6pZmR1ucfl1qyP+ VOV30CWZLgN5OGPEhEb9+uctdurvTfVuTShzeMs72pxJElSlI1ojjhD+Ty4Sw= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7975399177; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 02:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC8A899176; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 02:09:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Ben Peart , Alex Vandiver , Ben Peart , git@vger.kernel.org, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, t.gummerer@gmail.com, l.s.r@web.de, jsorianopastor@gmail.com, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] read_index_from(): Skip verification of the cache entry order to speed index loading References: <20171018142725.10948-1-benpeart@microsoft.com> <20171024144544.7544-1-benpeart@microsoft.com> <11666ccf-6406-d585-f519-7a1934c2973a@gmail.com> <20171030180334.ddursnmj5wqgimqu@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171031171058.vs5aau5x26ebx7kq@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 15:09:37 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3E3BCC96-BECB-11E7-BB7E-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:01:45AM -0400, Ben Peart wrote: > >> > > But what we probably _do_ need is to make sure that "git fsck" would >> > > detect such an out-of-order index. So that developers and users alike >> > > can diagnose suspected problems. >> > >> > Agree -- that seems like a better home for this logic. >> >> That is how version 1 of this patch worked but the feedback to that patch >> was to remove it "not only during the normal operation but also in fsck." > > Sorry for the mixed messages (I think they are mixed between different > people, and not mixed _just_ from me ;) ). > > For what it's worth, I like your v1, but can live with either approach. I agree that v1 is the less bad one between the two. To be honest, if the original code were done in that way (i.e. the state with v1 applied), I probably would have had a very hard time to justify accepting a patch to "make it safer by always checking at runtime" (i.e. a reverse of v1 patch). So, let's go with v1. Thanks, all.