From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 207B7156E2 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80DCEBA for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 01:05:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30099 invoked by uid 109); 14 Nov 2023 09:05:07 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 09:05:07 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 13241 invoked by uid 111); 14 Nov 2023 09:05:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 04:05:11 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 04:05:06 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: commit-graph paranoia performance, was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.43.0-rc1 Message-ID: <20231114090506.GA2107135@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20231113205538.GA2028092@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 09:46:26AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > Should we default GIT_COMMIT_GRAPH_PARANOIA to "0"? Yes, some operations > > might miss a breakage, but that is true of so much of Git. For day to > > day commands we generally assume that the repository is not corrupted, > > and avoid looking at any data we can. Other commands (like "commit-graph > > verify", but maybe others) would probably want to be more careful > > (either by checking this case explicitly, or by enabling the paranoia > > flag themselves). > > I'd be fine with that as a follow-up change, yes. I agree that in > general we shouldn't see this kind of corruption, and it's good that the > behaviour can be toggled so easily now. > > I'm happy to write that patch if you don't plan to. I hadn't started on it, so please feel free to go ahead. -Peff