Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] refs/reftable: add fsck check for incorrect update index

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Introduce a fsck check for the reftable backend, which checks if the
>> tables in 'tables.list' contain sequential update index. The tables in
>> the reftable backend should contain sequential update index. This fsck
>> check ensures that.
>>
>> We must note that the reftable backend itself doesn't check to ensure
>> this and it also doesn't check to ensure that the index in the table
>> name matches the index in the header or the table. The latter is not
>> implemented in this fsck check either and will be added in a future
>> patch where we add fsck checks for internals of a table.
>
> Similar to the previous step, I am not sure why this should not be
> checked at runtime and is flagged as an error.
>
> In general, we do try to avoid retroactively tightening rules, but
> the reftable is so new and not even the default.  If we noticed that
> the runtime has been overly loose, the time to tighten it is now,
> not after even more installations use it.