Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/6] hash-object: use fsck to check objects

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2023, 14:06 UTC
Message-ID: <230201.868rhhqxp1.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d225dddc-973c-f710-9d24-cb53b26b973f@web.de>

On Sun, Jan 22 2023, René Scharfe wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Am 22.01.23 um 08:48 schrieb Jeff King:
>> We probably also should outright reject gigantic trees,
>> which closes out a whole class of integer truncation problems. I know
>> GitHub has rejected trees over 100MB for years for this reason.
>
> Makes sense.

I really don't think it does, let's not forever encode arbitrary limits in the formats because of transitory implementation details.

Those sort of arbitrary limits are understandable for hosting providers, and a sensible trade-off on that front.

But for git as a general tool? I'd like to be able to throw whatever garbage I've got locally at it, and not have it complain.

We already have a deluge of int v.s. unsigned int v.s. size_t warnings that we could address, we're just choosing to suppress them currently. Instead we have hacks like cast_size_t_to_int().

Those sorts of hacks are understandable as band-aid fixes, but let's work on fixing the real causes.