From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D844318D63D for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722959679; cv=none; b=Z42JN3RM1j4EdO05RJjWcPy7JTK4MvasgjtVkxN1O5E2GLlAvlTTjv6NIJ9CoN6XiMOkUr2NL+Con8NFnzK25u2rHb38XFzcGH0D5PcDKiVvHQsdiE63vX5cw9cUA2fVSl/JY4QWEbI8Vs8iMO5bP1yoXSAHrHs13YGD7tRG8wA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722959679; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Eava742OYgO1GfJch6OOq8jmPmq0oBINWvM8vSBZ/e0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XsO0P3TK1QIyHRlnNf2N3fKDjOp43627c/GZ1vGKLKHJ0L4YSv8+mH+EJ3EYU2kuhOnuEYwvClnl81IBqtpFO+XwAuI4z7urDLx6f++krkDqRuixNB2BEcvbEDXieFM57e10t1sqJgkDYWTLc3vZwkTQsAo6Mu54QyTbNd9Z8Vs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=xU4aaXRV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="xU4aaXRV" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2B92E8BC; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:54:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Eava742OYgO1GfJch6OOq8jmPmq0oBINWvM8vS BZ/e0=; b=xU4aaXRVpmyQ28tr9yZfb51WmD1z4QVHE14hZHmJpr2jdsnF8Iz2LI FDC/SKOMrj4H8ffgMDr2VWeuxozBt5ns+shBqmuQ3/IV/XIt8xMeesgemJrdcqNH U133iXOi8fsGuCe6daai7n4fdvyCx0PDQyUofjBF6L7GGtN5G2lyE= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35E12E8BB; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:54:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1335F2E8BA; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:54:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: shejialuo , git@vger.kernel.org, Karthik Nayak , Eric Sunshine , Justin Tobler Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH v14 09/11] builtin/fsck: add `git-refs verify` child process In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:04:37 +0200") References: Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2E11031C-540C-11EF-B639-9B0F950A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> > But if "git refs verify" does exercise all the new code paths (and >> > the refactored code that existed before this series, sitting now in >> > different places), then I do not have to worry about it. My question >> > was primarily to extract "even though we do not wire this up to fsck, >> > we already have another code paths that uses all these changes" out >> > of you. >> ... > So, to summarize: the refactored functionality is both used and tested > and I think it's sensible to defer the integration of git-fsck(1) and > git-refs(1). After refactoring, existing functionality about objects are used, of course, (there is no other code that does so), the refactoring lets the code to learn to perform checks on references, and these new checks are exercised by "git refs verify". I took what shejialuo said that way, and that is fine by me when I said the above ;-). So I think we all are on the same page? Thanks.