From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:46:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make pack-objects a bit more resilient to repo corruption
Message-ID: <20101022144600.GA5554@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010220037250.2764@xanadu.home>

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:53:32AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> -		if (!src->data)
> +		if (!src->data) {
> +			if (src_entry->preferred_base) {
> +				/* 
> +				 * Those objects are not included in the
> +				 * resulting pack.  Be resilient and ignore
> +				 * them if they can't be read, in case the
> +				 * pack could be created nevertheless.
> +				 */
> +				return 0;
> +			}
>  			die("object %s cannot be read",
>  			    sha1_to_hex(src_entry->idx.sha1));
> +		}

By converting this die() into a silent return, are we losing a place
where git might previously have alerted a user to corruption? In this
case, we can continue the operation without the object, but if we have
detected corruption, letting the user know as soon as possible is
probably a good idea.

In other words, should this instead be:

  warning("unable to read preferred base object: %s", ...);
  return 0;

Or will some other part of the code already complained to stderr?

-Peff