Re: How to replace a single corrupt, packed object?

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>]

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> The actual downside I see with this patch is the fact that real data 
> corruptions might be "fixed" automagically with user unaware of it.  
> This could be a serious sign that the hardware is going bad and 
> requiring the user to consciously use -f to fix things is good.  However 
> it is most unlikely that redundant objects will be kept around in the 
> normal case, hence manual intervention will be needed anyway to bring a 
> copy of bad object into the repository.  So not having to use -f might 
> not be such an issue.

Yup, I agree completely.

Duplicates should be rare, and likely are only the fault of a
dumb transport fetch, or the user trying to fix their repository
by placing copies of corrupt objects obtained from elsewhere.
Requiring -f to fix such cases is heavy-handed.  Some trees can
take many hours to repack with -f; think gcc or OOo.

-- 
Shawn.