Jeff King writes:
> Broken ident lines are annoying, but not _too_ fundamentally bad.
> Duplicate tree entries are a lot worse. Fsck even distinguishes between
> "error" and "warning", but "index-pack --strict" treats both as a reason
> to reject the object. We could perhaps loosen that, and make
Am 31.08.2014 um 17:17 schrieb Jeff King:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 06:00:59PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
My only nit with patch 2: Petr Stodulka and Martin von
Gagern should be mentioned as bug reporters.
Yeah, I agree with that. And actually, you should get a Reported-by:
on the first patch
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 06:10:33PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> > We do detect and complain if --strict is given. Should we make it the
> > default instead? I think it is still worthwhile to have a mode that can
> > handle these packs. It may be the only reasonable way to recover the
> > data from
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 06:00:59PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> My only nit with patch 2: Petr Stodulka and Martin von
> Gagern should be mentioned as bug reporters.
Yeah, I agree with that. And actually, you should get a Reported-by:
on the first patch. :)
However, I think there are some grav
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:59:32PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
>> > I agree it is probably a bug on the sending side, but I think last time
>> > this came up we decided to try to be liberal in what we accept. c.f.
>> > http://thread.gmane.org/g
Am 30.08.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Jeff King:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:59:32PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
I agree it is probably a bug on the sending side, but I think last time
this came up we decided to try to be liberal in what we accept. c.f.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-contro
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:59:32PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> > I agree it is probably a bug on the sending side, but I think last time
> > this came up we decided to try to be liberal in what we accept. c.f.
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/232305/focus=232310
>
> II
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 02:56:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > If a pack contains duplicates of an object, and if that
>> > object has any deltas pointing at it with REF_DELTA, we will
>> > try to resolve the delt
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 02:56:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > If a pack contains duplicates of an object, and if that
> > object has any deltas pointing at it with REF_DELTA, we will
> > try to resolve the deltas twice. While unusual, this is not
> > strictly an error
Jeff King writes:
> If a pack contains duplicates of an object, and if that
> object has any deltas pointing at it with REF_DELTA, we will
> try to resolve the deltas twice. While unusual, this is not
> strictly an error, but we currently die() with an unhelpful
> message.
Hmm, I vaguely recall
If a pack contains duplicates of an object, and if that
object has any deltas pointing at it with REF_DELTA, we will
try to resolve the deltas twice. While unusual, this is not
strictly an error, but we currently die() with an unhelpful
message. We should instead silently ignore the delta and
move
11 matches
Mail list logo
