Hi Junio,
first of all: the improvements discussed here are already part of v6.
On 2015-06-19 19:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin writes:
>
>> I basically made up names on the go, based on the messages.
>>
>>> Some of the questionable groups are:
>>>
>>> BAD_DATE DATE_OVERFLO
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> I basically made up names on the go, based on the messages.
>
>> Some of the questionable groups are:
>>
>> BAD_DATE DATE_OVERFLOW
>
> I guess it should be BAD_DATE_OVERFLOW to be more consistent?
I am not sure about "consistency", but surely a common prefix wo
Hi Junio,
On 2015-06-19 00:11, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I haven't had a chance to go through the all the patches, but one
> thing I noticed that did not appear in the interdiff is that some of
> the message IDs are unclear. For example, there are BAD_something,
> INVALID_something and MISSING_som
Johannes Schindelin writes:
> At the moment, the git-fsck's integrity checks are targeted toward the
> end user, i.e. the error messages are really just messages, intended for
> human consumption.
>
> Under certain circumstances, some of those errors should be allowed to
> be turned into mere war
At the moment, the git-fsck's integrity checks are targeted toward the
end user, i.e. the error messages are really just messages, intended for
human consumption.
Under certain circumstances, some of those errors should be allowed to
be turned into mere warnings, though, because the cost of fixing
5 matches
Mail list logo
