Re: propagating repo corruption across clone
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 25, 2013, 15:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130325155600.GA18216@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8A0eOWEJ2aqPSLof_CodJM6BadFxQHy5Vb0kAwwTSTS3w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:31:04PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: > > There are basically three levels of transport that can be used on a > > local machine: > > > > 1. Hard-linking (very fast, no redundancy). > > > > 2. Byte-for-byte copy (medium speed, makes a separate copy of the > > data, but does not check the integrity of the original). > > > > 3. Regular git transport, creating a pack (slowest, but should include > > redundancy checks). > > > > Using --no-hardlinks turns off (1), but leaves (2) as an option. I > > think the documentation in "git clone" could use some improvement in > > that area. > > Not only git-clone. How git-fetch and git-push verify the new pack > should also be documented. I don't think many people outside the > contributor circle know what is done (and maybe how) when data is > received from outside.
I think it's less of a documentation issue there, though, because they _only_ do (3). There is no option to do anything else, so there is nothing to warn the user about in terms of tradeoffs.
I agree that in general git's handling of corruption could be documented somewhere, but I'm not sure where.
-Peff