From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: propagating repo corruption across clone Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20130325155600.GA18216@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130324183133.GA11200@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130324192350.GA20688@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130325145644.GA16576@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jeff Mitchell , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Duy Nguyen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 25 16:56:35 2013 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 1UK9lC-00014T-72 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:56:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758565Ab3CYP4F (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:05 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:39051 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758527Ab3CYP4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 25334 invoked by uid 107); 25 Mar 2013 15:57:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:57:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:56:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:31:04PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jeff King wrote: > > There are basically three levels of transport that can be used on a > > local machine: > > > > 1. Hard-linking (very fast, no redundancy). > > > > 2. Byte-for-byte copy (medium speed, makes a separate copy of the > > data, but does not check the integrity of the original). > > > > 3. Regular git transport, creating a pack (slowest, but should include > > redundancy checks). > > > > Using --no-hardlinks turns off (1), but leaves (2) as an option. I > > think the documentation in "git clone" could use some improvement in > > that area. > > Not only git-clone. How git-fetch and git-push verify the new pack > should also be documented. I don't think many people outside the > contributor circle know what is done (and maybe how) when data is > received from outside. I think it's less of a documentation issue there, though, because they _only_ do (3). There is no option to do anything else, so there is nothing to warn the user about in terms of tradeoffs. I agree that in general git's handling of corruption could be documented somewhere, but I'm not sure where. -Peff