Re: git fsck not identifying corrupted packs

From: Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net>
Date: Oct 20, 2009, 16:20 UTC
Message-ID: <200910201020.18676.wjl@icecavern.net>
In-Reply-To: <200910201741.50764.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com>

On Tuesday 20 October 2009 09:41:50 Robin Rosenberg wrote:

> måndag 19 oktober 2009 21:27:48 skrev  Wesley J. Landaker:
> > (Not CCing everyone, since this is mostly curiosa in the "using git as
> > it was never intended" section):

[...]

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Filesystems are mostly reliable, but only until your crazy users do
> > strange and terrible things. I have a real, non-toy environment where I
> > use this stack as a [horrible] workaround for some issues beyond my
> > control:
> >
> > git -> ext4 -> lvm -> dmcrypt -> loop -> sshfs -> cygwin sshd -> SMB
> > share

My main point was to illustrate that having "git fsck" do a REALLY GOOD CHECK is still desirable, as we still haven't reached the days of file- system utopia where nothing ever gets corrupted (even with a smaller, simpler stack).

The actual application where I use this stack is because of odd requirements and circumstances like data must be physically stored on a particular Windows server on the network that uses a weird authentication method that samba doesn't support, and it has to go over the network encrypted anyway, there are lots of holes in the data, so I want ext4 for the extent support, file-size limitations on the target, etc.

It's a really an exotic love-hate mix between an off-by-one-please-no-never- again kind of situation coupled with a bit of "because I can".

> The obvious follow up question here is: Why?

If you are both nerdy and morbidly curious enough to care, send me a "but, no ... really, WHY?!" with the git list CC dropped and we can talk about details and/or other crazy stuff. (I don't want to get wildly off-topic on this list.)