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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 B5C061F4B4 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 01:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728465AbhATBFB (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:05:01 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:50960 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727354AbhATBE7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:04:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1F411C23F; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:04:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=kQFG4gwM7ZhQu/DE4k+x9T/gNFo=; b=qojTHu MbQilM9VJjuASEngvdFuDGkQMrRrh1i3jZ86AzCkngDJelh21+Ho9t2xkvbCrKDm j1aZ2DgijOoj1I7p+Zu0ePok3zNUPhUcTAgXtiClGAfebIp1lPK4QwZ3T0PHLNob NbApZbJOhUbtx3EAghWuCEo4rQjTH4W0w3qzI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=vXRVR/lyb0gN0jszAPEYtZvWfhqluHb3 fN7NqSvwkhqudGXhEqdbeUs+NlmOtN4VrzSqdWTPgvZGKk80PwUqqzsMrLHfBh4d GR9/PgeqsEwGaK1LsuMH6ymU6zFRVUorMvbH5X6LxJfIop4H89/7tTeD+6YXAh4P z7+BLvEaTIc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C1F11C23E; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:04:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.99.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24BAA11C23C; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:04:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: stolee@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com, git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: RFC on packfile URIs and .gitmodules check In-Reply-To: <20210119191306.1500480-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:13:06 -0800") References: <20210119191306.1500480-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:04:11 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 68FC324C-5ABB-11EB-94D4-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> It might be nice to teach 'index-pack' a mode that says certain >> errors should be reported as warnings by writing the problematic >> OIDs to stdout/stderr. Then, the second check after all packs are >> present can focus on those problematic objects instead of >> re-scanning everything. > > My initial reaction was that stdout is already used to report the hash > part of the generated name and that stderr is already used for whatever > warnings there are, but looking at the documentation, index-pack > --fsck-objects is "[for] internal use only", so it might be fine to > extend the output format in this case and report the problematic OIDs > after the hash. I'll take a look. If I am not mistaken, Taylor also mentioned the possibility to give "these objects need reinspecting" to a later process, and it is an excellent suggestion. And I think it is perfectly fine to adjust the internal format used purely for internal use. Thanks.