From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgU2NoYXJmZQ==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] index-pack: handle duplicate base objects gracefully Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:00:59 +0200 Message-ID: <5401F53B.6070707@web.de> References: <20140829205538.GD29456@peff.net> <20140829205809.GB7060@peff.net> <20140829220818.GA24834@peff.net> <20140830131649.GA26833@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , Martin von Gagern , git To: Jeff King , Shawn Pearce X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 30 18:01:33 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XNl5m-0006Qp-6l for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:01:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751700AbaH3QB0 convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:01:26 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:59955 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751677AbaH3QB0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:01:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.27] ([79.253.135.121]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MRlIL-1XpzBl2sVV-00SwxQ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:01:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 In-Reply-To: <20140830131649.GA26833@peff.net> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:d1GdlaMQ63/iC6NaUTgyvuwFA/BXwZxHJNthE3GYSHeNmoFLNmw xGHGABrJD6gAX+AIwn6Uf4+0WQx6H0XXHdDRUba4TExWAb7EFbevLtsqp30uY/cA+NO0sWX 0s8CoVjGyk3kNAEavXr227+6j98kNJuF31AMbz3MJfWUNgwg9NLd4kK0XqUf00lSSWTE8Vf JUU6PP0SWuzFYd4sECuyg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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-control.git/232305/focus= =3D232310 >> >> IIRC they aren't valid pack files to contain duplicates. >> >> Once upon a time JGit had a bug and android.googlesource.com returne= d >> duplicate objects in a Linux kernel repository. This caused at least >> some versions of git-core to fail very badly in binary search at >> object lookup time or something. We had a lot of users angry with us= =2E >> :) >> >> I know Nico said its OK last year, but its really not. I don't think >> implementations are capable of handling it. > > 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 c= an > handle these packs. It may be the only reasonable way to recover the > data from such a broken pack (and that broken pack may be the only co= py > of the data you have, if you are stuck getting it out of a broken > implementation on a remote server). Sounds reasonable; being able to extract code from broken repos --=20 especially in this real-world case -- is beneficial. My only nit with patch 2: Petr Stodulka and Marti= n=20 von Gagern should be mentioned as bug reporter= s. Ren=C3=A9