From: Karthik Nayak Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:11:24 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] refs/reftable: add fsck check for incorrect update index Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > Karthik Nayak 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. I think your point is fair and I agree. I did consider it, but didn't want to 'retroactively tightening rules'. But I think it is justified, more so since we're not introducing any changes on the format, but just more validation around it. I should've replied here sooner, but I didn't ever get to it. I found some time to finally fix the comments from this series and will send in a new version. I will be more diligent about it here on. - Karthik