From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: mktree: multiple same-named objects Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:24:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20140827162425.GA1432@peff.net> References: <1409114517.13351.6.camel@leckie> <20140827051341.GB32141@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Turner , Johannes Schindelin , git mailing list To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 27 18:25:02 2014 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 1XMg1o-0004Kv-Tn for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:24:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935235AbaH0QY2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:24:28 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60148 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S935223AbaH0QY1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:24:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 8085 invoked by uid 102); 27 Aug 2014 16:24:27 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:24:27 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:24:25 -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 Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:17:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am somewhat against outright removing the capability to write out > invalid objects deliberately from these low level tools, because we > would need a way to easily reproduce bugs in end-user facing tools > by other people who claim to produce Git objects, but I would agree > that by default that should be forbidden. > > In other words, two things must happen; improve checks when these > low level debugging aid tools are creating objects, and allow > bypassing these additional checks with "--experiment" option or > something. Yeah, definitely. I had imagined it as "--strict" and "--no-strict", with flipping the default to "--strict" at some point (I do not see a reason anybody would not want it in normal use, but if we are worried, we can even go slowly on flipping the default). -Peff