Re: [PATCH 04/67] fsck: don't fsck alternates for connectivity-only check

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 16, 2015, 18:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20150916181237.GB17381@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtwquqlz2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Hi Peff,
> >
> > On 2015-09-15 17:24, Jeff King wrote:
> >> Commit 02976bf (fsck: introduce `git fsck --connectivity-only`,
> >> 2015-06-22) recently gave fsck an option to perform only a
> >> subset of the checks, by skipping the fsck_object_dir()
> >> call. However, it does so only for the local object
> >> directory, and we still do expensive checks on any alternate
> >> repos. We should skip them in this case, too.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> >
> > ACK!
> 
> Thanks, both.
> 
> Peff, I am inclined to take at least 1 and 4 outside the context of
> this series and queue them on their own topics.  I do not think
> either is too urgent to be in 2.6, but on the other hand they look
> both trivially correct (that is a famous last word that often comes
> back and haunt us, though), so...

Yeah, they are conceptually their own topics, and I do not mind doing it that way. Note that a later patch in the sprintf-audit topic touches the same spot in fsck, and we'll get a nasty conflict if they are done separately.

Speaking of which, how do you want the next round of patches? I'm hesitant to spam the list with 67 patches again, when only a fraction have changed (and for all but the _to/_r thing, I've posted my changes already).

-Peff