From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20090128092425.GA2400@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090128020220.GE1321@spearce.org> <7v3af4yvmu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090128033020.GF1321@spearce.org> <7v1vuoxcxk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090128044150.GI1321@spearce.org> <7vd4e7x5ov.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090128075515.GA1133@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vfxj3vos2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vbptrvo0m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , Linus Torvalds , PJ Hyett , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 28 10:25:57 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LS6gC-0002ll-Iz for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:25:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752621AbZA1JYa (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752171AbZA1JY3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:29 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:47580 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751930AbZA1JY2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 20456 invoked by uid 107); 28 Jan 2009 09:24:36 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:36 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:24:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbptrvo0m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:22:01AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nah, I take that back. > > Even the original code does not consider this case an error. > > If you really want that, the revision machinery needs major surgery, as I > already noted that the design of mark_parents_uninteresting() wants to > treat a missing uninteresting commit as a non-error event. Hrm. Never mind my concern, then. I was worried that we were losing some existing corruption checks, but it seems they are not there in the first place. -Peff