Re: [PATCH 00/12] Fix various overly aggressive protections in 2.45.1 and friends

> Joey Hess <id@joeyh.name> writes:
>
>> Please also revert it, or at least the portions for 
>> and symlinkPointsToGitDir and symlinkTargetLength. The
>> checks for symlinkTargetBlob and symlinkTargetMissing seem worth
>> keeping.
>
> Looking at the change in question, in a33fea08 (fsck: warn about
> symlink pointing inside a gitdir, 2024-04-10), you said:
> ...
> So, I am ambivalent.  I have prepared a revert queued on maint-2.39
> and cascaded it up to the maintenance track, which I tentatively
> queued on top of 'seen', to see how much damage such a reversion
> involves (and it did not look too bad), but
>
>  (1) I am not sure if this is such a huge deal that requires a
>      revert;
>
>  (2) I am not sure which one is more practical between ripping
>      everything out and demoting these new fsck error types with
>      FSCK_WARN to FSCK_IGNORE.  If the structure of the code to
>      perform these checks is more or less good and the actual check
>      the code implements is bad, the latter might give us a better
>      foundation to build on than rebuilding everything from scratch.
>      On the other hand, if we are redoing things in the open, it may
>      be better to forget about the code in 2.45.1/2.39.4 and to build
>      from scratch for those reviewers and developers who will offer
>      help.
>
>  (3) As I look at the change by a33fea08 again, it actually adds a
>      few new fsck error types with FSCK_ERROR.  Perhaps that is a
>      good enough reason to do a straight revert for now?
>
> Thanks.  It is past my bedtime so I won't be pushing out the 'seen'
> with the revert I prepared as a practice, at least tonight.