From: Shawn O. Pearce Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:46:08 GMT Subject: Re: How to replace a single corrupt, packed object? Message-ID: <20080811034608.GA27684@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: Nicolas Pitre wrote: > The actual downside I see with this patch is the fact that real data > corruptions might be "fixed" automagically with user unaware of it. > This could be a serious sign that the hardware is going bad and > requiring the user to consciously use -f to fix things is good. However > it is most unlikely that redundant objects will be kept around in the > normal case, hence manual intervention will be needed anyway to bring a > copy of bad object into the repository. So not having to use -f might > not be such an issue. Yup, I agree completely. Duplicates should be rare, and likely are only the fault of a dumb transport fetch, or the user trying to fix their repository by placing copies of corrupt objects obtained from elsewhere. Requiring -f to fix such cases is heavy-handed. Some trees can take many hours to repack with -f; think gcc or OOo. -- Shawn.