From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:05:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Correctly handle transient files in shared repositories
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601120905000.2964@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <20160111220603.GD21131@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Jeff King wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:54:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > 
> > > I'm not sure I buy this argument. Yes, you should not be writing
> > > anything else, but that does not change the fact that "fsck" will
> > > unceremoniously abort:
> > > ...
> > > So I think this would be a reasonable candidate (or alternatively, to
> > > treat EPERM on an existing file as a soft error). I am totally fine not
> > > to address it as part of this series, though.
> > 
> > Yeah, that crossed my mind (and I agree with the conclusion).
> > 
> > Listing what is left deliberately and why is still a good idea, as
> > that would force people to think twice before wasting effort to
> > convert blindly without thinking.  Listing what is left behind like
> > "git fsck" that we know we shouldn't leave behind is even better to
> > mark low-hanging fruits.  How do you like this one instead?
> > 
> >      - git fsck, when writing lost&found blobs (this probably should
> >        be changed, but left as a low-hanging fruit for future
> >        contributors).
> 
> I think that's more accurate. :)

Fine by me!

Ciao,
Dscho