From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/67] fsck: don't fsck alternates for connectivity-only check Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:12:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20150916181237.GB17381@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20150915152125.GA27504@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150915152428.GD29753@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 16 20:13:01 2015 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 1ZcHCS-0001Lt-FS for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:12:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753761AbbIPSMr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:12:47 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60176 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753218AbbIPSMq (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:12:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 16398 invoked by uid 102); 16 Sep 2015 18:12:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:12:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 20908 invoked by uid 107); 16 Sep 2015 18:12:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:12:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:12:37 -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, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:04:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Hi Peff, > > > > On 2015-09-15 17:24, Jeff King wrote: > >> Commit 02976bf (fsck: introduce `git fsck --connectivity-only`, > >> 2015-06-22) recently gave fsck an option to perform only a > >> subset of the checks, by skipping the fsck_object_dir() > >> call. However, it does so only for the local object > >> directory, and we still do expensive checks on any alternate > >> repos. We should skip them in this case, too. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jeff King > > > > ACK! > > Thanks, both. > > Peff, I am inclined to take at least 1 and 4 outside the context of > this series and queue them on their own topics. I do not think > either is too urgent to be in 2.6, but on the other hand they look > both trivially correct (that is a famous last word that often comes > back and haunt us, though), so... Yeah, they are conceptually their own topics, and I do not mind doing it that way. Note that a later patch in the sprintf-audit topic touches the same spot in fsck, and we'll get a nasty conflict if they are done separately. Speaking of which, how do you want the next round of patches? I'm hesitant to spam the list with 67 patches again, when only a fraction have changed (and for all but the _to/_r thing, I've posted my changes already). -Peff