warning in tree xxx: contains zero-padded file modes

> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:18:03PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Samuel Lijin <sxlijin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > # Irrelevant but someone should take a look
>> >
>> > 693
>>
>> To save people some time (and since i looked at it anyway), this is
>> about whether "warning in tree xxx: contains zero-padded file modes:
>> from fsck should be a warning or error. It is a warning now even
>> though "git -c transfer.fsckobjects=true clone" treats it as an error.
>> There are some discussions in the past [1] [2] about this.

> The bug that caused the trees is long-fixed. There's a question of
> how severity levels should be handled in transfer.fsckObjects. By
> default it treats everything as a reason to reject the object. Dscho
> added configurable levels a few versions ago. It may be a good idea to
> tweak the defaults to something more permissive[1].
>
>> There's also a question "And I failed to find in the documentation if
>> transfer.fsckobjects could be disabled per repository, can you confirm
>> it's not possible for now ?"
>
> I don't know why it wouldn't be, though note that it won't override
> the operation-specific {receive,fetch}.fsckObjects.
>
> -Peff
>
> [1] If we had a more permissive set of defaults, it would probably make
>     sense to turn on fsckObjects by default. Some of the checks are
>     security-relevant, like disallowing trees with ".GIT",
>     "../../etc/passwd", etc. Those _should_ be handled sanely by the
>     rest of Git, but it serves as a belt-and-suspenders check, and also
>     protects anybody with a buggy Git downstream from you.
>
>     GitHub has had the feature turned on for ages, with a few caveats:
>
>       - we loosened the zero-padded mode warning, because it was causing
>         too many false positives
>
>       - we loosened the timezone checks for the same reason; we've seen
>         time zones that aren't exactly 4 characters before
>
>       - we occasionally get complaints from people trying to push old
>         histories with bogus committer idents. Usually a missing name or
>         similar.
>
>      So those are the ones we'd probably need to loosen off the bat, and
>      they're all pretty harmless. But it would be a potential irritating
>      regression for somebody if they have a history with other minor
>      flaws, and Git suddenly starts refusing to clone it.