Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

David Turner writes: > Because truncated, to me, means "something that has been cut off". Here, > the recorded length is too short, so it's probably not the case that > something was cut off -- it was never right to begin with. That's perfectly sensible. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

David Turner writes: > Hopefully the encoding works correctly on these patches. If not, you > can fetch from > https://github.com/novalis/git/ > on branch dturner/bad-trees This does not test cleanly here, unfortunately. Specifically, tests 30 and 31 t1007 do fine with 1/2 alone, but they seem

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 12:43 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Turner writes: > > > The first patch is a re-roll of Peff's patch from 2014 -- here's > > the archive message: > > > > http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-tree-walk-be-more-specific-about-corrupt-tree-errors-td7603558.html > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

David Turner writes: > The first patch is a re-roll of Peff's patch from 2014 -- here's > the archive message: > > http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-tree-walk-be-more-specific-about-corrupt-tree-errors-td7603558.html > > Not sure why this wasn't applied then, but I thought it looked pretty >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:32 PM, David Turner wrote: > The first patch is a re-roll of Peff's patch from 2014 -- here's > the archive message: > > http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-tree-walk-be-more-specific-about-corrupt-tree-errors-td7603558.html > > Not sure why this wasn't applied then, b

[PATCH 0/2] tree-walk improvements

The first patch is a re-roll of Peff's patch from 2014 -- here's the archive message: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/PATCH-tree-walk-be-more-specific-about-corrupt-tree-errors-td7603558.html Not sure why this wasn't applied then, but I thought it looked pretty good, so I added a few tests. Hope