Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] core.fsyncObjectFiles: make the docs less flippant

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > As amusing as Linus's original prose[1] is here it doesn't really explain
> > in any detail to the uninitiated why you would or wouldn't enable
> > this, and the counter-intuitive reason for why git wouldn't fsync your
> > precious data.
> >
> > So elaborate (a lot) on why this may or may not be needed. This is my
> > best-effort attempt to summarize the various points raised in the last
> > ML[2] discussion about this.
> >
> > 1.  aafe9fbaf4 ("Add config option to enable 'fsync()' of object
> >     files", 2008-06-18)
> > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20180117184828.31816-1-hch@lst.de/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/config/core.txt | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> When I saw the subject in my mailbox, I expected to see that you
> would resurrect Christoph's updated text in [*1*], but you wrote a
> whole lot more ;-) And they are quite informative to help readers to
> understand what the option does.  I am not sure if the understanding
> directly help readers to decide if it is appropriate for their own
> repositories, though X-<.