Re: [PATCH 5/5] sha1_file: don't re-scan pack directory for null sha1

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2017, 03:20 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh8tjkpsl.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171124173201.GA29190@sigill>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> So I dunno. That is far from exhaustive, but it does seem like most
> cases should assume the presence of the file.

You are right. I should have considered that "we got a random object-name looking thing and we do not care if it does not exist" is a very narrow minority case. Most of the object names we deal with come from local repository traversal and unless things like the "fsck-promisor" comes into the picture, we should always have them available locally.

Show 5 quoted lines

> But it may not be that big a deal. For the most part, all bets are off
> in a corrupt repo. My main concern is just that we do not want the
> corruption to spread or to make it harder for us to recover from (and
> that includes allowing us to delete or overwrite other data that would
> otherwise be forbidden, which is what's happening in the fetch case).

Absolutely.

Thanks.