All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <>
To: Jeff King <>
Cc:, Git Mailing List <>,
	Junio C Hamano <>,
	Jeff Hostetler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] fsck: force core.checksumindex=1
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 10:23:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Jeff King <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:31:03PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:53 PM,  <> wrote:
>> > Teach fsck to override core.checksumindex and always verify
>> > the index checksum when reading the index.
>> Sorry to only chime in about this at v4.
>> I think this patch & the documentation you added for
>> core.checksumindex in 1/4 would be much less confusing if you made
>> this a on-by-default command-line option like e.g. "full".
>> With this patch nothing amends the documentation to indicate that the
>> core.checksumindex is magically overridden when fsck runs, I think
>> something like this (needs amending to integrate) on top would make
>> this clearer:
> I think that is the wrong direction to reduce confusion. We don't need
> more options to twiddle this flag, we need fewer. For instance, in your
> proposed documentation:
>> @@ -61,6 +61,11 @@ index file, all SHA-1 references in `refs`
>> namespace, and all reflogs
>>         object pools.  This is now default; you can turn it off
>>         with --no-full.
>> +--[no-]checksum-index:
>> +       Validate the checksum at the end of the index file, on by
>> +       default, locally overrides any "core.checksumIndex" setting
>> +       unless negated. See linkgit:git-config[1].
> That tells us _what_ it does, but I'm left scratching my head with
> "why".
> I don't think there is any reason you would want fsck not to compute
> that checksum (just like there is no option to ask fsck not to check
> pack sha1 trailers).
> I would go so far as to say that the config option itself is unnecessary
> in this iteration of the series. I only asked for it so that we could
> test the verification code paths (both for correctness and performance).
> But if fsck can exercise the code path, we can check correctness that
> way. And for performance, it's probably enough to test two separate
> builds (which Jeff has already done).
> Junio also asked for the usual "add a config, and then later we'll flip
> the default" procedure. But IMHO that isn't necessary here. Nobody
> should ever care about this flag. It was largely useless to check it on
> every read in the first place. And if you suspect there's corruption in
> your repository, you should run "git fsck".

The part that confused my & I found unintuitive is that there's a new
core.WHATEVER config that'll get silently overridden by a specific
command, git-fsck.

Nothing else I can think of in core.* works like this, i.e. it's a
namespace for "applies to all of git", core.editor, core.ignoreCase

Having git-fsck have a command-line option that's on by default as I
suggested is one way to get out of that confusion. It makes it a
special case of a CLI option overriding some config.

But yeah, another way to resolve this is to get rid of the config
option altogether, or document in git-config.txt that
core.checksumIndex is obeyed by everything except git-fsck.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-04  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-03 18:53 [PATCH v4 0/4] read-cache: call verify_hdr() in a background thread git
2017-04-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] read-cache: core.checksumindex git
2017-04-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] fsck: force core.checksumindex=1 git
2017-04-03 20:31   ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-04-04  2:29     ` Jeff King
2017-04-04  8:23       ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2017-04-04  8:27         ` Jeff King
2017-04-04 13:13         ` Jeff Hostetler
2017-04-04 20:18           ` Jeff King
2017-04-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] t1450-fsck: test core.checksumindex git
2017-04-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] p0002-read-cache: " git

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.