Re: Tree with leading '0' modes in 1.7.0.3

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Scott Chacon wrote:
>>>> My stance has always been that the C Git is authoritative with regards to
>>>> formats and protocols. ??It's up to Github to fix their screw-up.
>>> It is fixed and will be deployed soon, but really, there is no reason
>>> to be snippy.  It is a simple and minor mistake effecting very few
>>> repositories (maybe 100 out of 730k)
> 
> What is the C Git stance on these 100 repositories then?  Are they
> now considered corrupt?  Or is 100 enough in the wild that we have
> to accept the problem, just like we accept the 10664 mode issue from
> "ancient" Linux?
> 
> I would love to say "those are corrupt, sorry, fix your repository".
> 
> But we have traditionally tried to help our users, and not cause
> them pain.  Forcing a rewrite on these 100 projects to fix up the
> corruption is going to be painful for them.  
> 
>>> , and the only reason it's an
>>> issue at all is that JGit is not following the authoritative CGit
>>> implementation of basically ignoring it.
>> But again CGit's fsck is not ignoring this discrepancy.  And if the CGit 
>> core is otherwise silently accepting it then it is a mistake.
> 
> Right.  I tend to agree.  CGit was too lax here, fsck shouldn't
> be issuing a warning, it should be a fatal error.  Both CGit and
> JGit are too lax by not failing when reading that tree during
> normal processing.

>>> Also, if we're all concerned about "Git reimplementation du jour"
>>> deviations, then we need to focus on libifying Git so there isn't a
>>> need for such re-implementations.  I'm hoping to help with a possible
>>> GSoC project on libgit2, but the lack of a linkable library will
>>> ensure that re-implementations in nearly every useful language will
>>> continue.
>> Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against Git reimplementations per se, as 
>> long as they rigorously implement the exact format and protocol from 
>> CGit.  In that sense it is important that the CGit fsck and verify-pack 
>> tools be exploited on objects/packs produced by alternate Git 
>> implementation systematically to find such issues.
> 
> When JGit had the tree sort order wrong, JGit was in the wrong,
> and any repository which contained those corrupt trees had to be
> fixed by rewriting them.  IIRC it was only the JGit repository
> itself that had this problem in the wild.  But we fixed our code.
> 
> IMHO, this leading '0' thing is a similar breakage.  We shouldn't
> relax CGit or JGit to accept it just because the Ruby implementation
> of Git got the tree encoding wrong.  If anything, we should teach
> these implementations to catch these sorts of problems earlier.
>