Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 5, 2011, 05:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vehxn9m37.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8Ch0m5KQ--VWzsmyNq2R-uHsvSYofHP8L+qcvhRrqgoKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> 2011/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>: >> I am not sure what purpose patch 2 serves, though. When we find a checksum >> mismatch for an object in a packstream due to a single-bit error, we would >> still be able to salvage other objects in other parts of the pack as long >> as we have a good .idx file, and in such a case, wouldn't it be better if >> we attempted to find as many corrupt objects that we know we cannot >> recover as possible and tell the user about them, so that they can be >> skipped during the recovery process? > > It's the inconsistency in that for(;;) loop. If we are going to > salvage as many objects as we could, should we do "continue;" instead > of "break;" when unpack_entry() or check_sha1_signature() fails?
I do not think making things worse for the sake of "consistency" is a good sell ;-). How hard would it be to make it also continue when these report a corruption?