Re: propagating repo corruption across clone

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:31:04PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>
>> 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.