From: Eric Rannaud <e@nanocritical.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:40:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fast-import: checkpoint: dump branches/tags/marks even if object_count==0
Message-ID: <CAH_=xobLo+K74HJ3a+XK4A3ok-FZJkAkO-9griaETkH50Qtp-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy3oyxiuo.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> I think that your patch the last round that feeds fd#8 in the
> foreground (i.e. fully trusting that the caller is sensibly giving
> input that produces no output) is already a good place to stop.
>
> Your patch this round that feeds fd#8 in the background, plus the
> attached patch (i.e. not trusting the caller as much and allowing it
> to use commands that outputs something, within reason), would also
> be a good place to stop.
>
> But I am not sure your patch this round alone is a good place to
> stop.  It somehow feels halfway either way.

I agree. If we're coding defensively against the caller, we do have to
include your patch to be effective, you're right. I reckon we likely
don't need to be quite so paranoid, at least until this has more
users.

Thanks.