From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:18:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fsck improvements
Message-ID: <CACsJy8Ch0m5KQ--VWzsmyNq2R-uHsvSYofHP8L+qcvhRrqgoKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v1utnd8yf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

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?
-- 
Duy