From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (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 AF84F39DBDB for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:23:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776381803; cv=none; b=bfFoUQmeL/pgaHnn1fbrtRlnn+9cE+K3MgwMKb37JUjV8PnSwsIzmzLslTk56LdYuMhoPll2K7ej8wjYEHIw4PYKz+DGMLc0jMZJfj8fGpEGzTR2R4HQdNpitp1bLGq0nme+6lVf7vL2wPGgjHf9LIpcwY6C39EBowVB+K4IlXI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776381803; c=relaxed/simple; bh=76ttSOSlTV00vvCqwAZJJDVPLHkUFqHNYX9Z2ZC2Gik=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nLAK+eS9b1MuvwZyE/f2peB+3dMRXIKbHDzbt8Ls26bHSDWuUSgSTifTYM1cJx4/YqMfdv7L4vzkQ53LRf6wUfne0XGQTSAS6aUk7QmE9gAHgsNPWW6LG4RLnk30wWdJT+/JLXsInGAoBpim9yAVHjrXWt9JoUpfyiSp7sJ9Or4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=BGF2fsL6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="BGF2fsL6" Received: (qmail 375078 invoked by uid 106); 16 Apr 2026 23:23:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=76ttSOSlTV00vvCqwAZJJDVPLHkUFqHNYX9Z2ZC2Gik=; b=BGF2fsL6FANkNiZrPc1VevCZ4mjXNla+Wt2AHN4fPeYR+bBFvTrANo9fR4+9tCqMsjK80p/EzYe7nMdwC9/mlgYQ2WyUfnddTMy4OgNBNRkbo1QWIgjnfCbGGkFnKnp25cRkvjDsviat8x9NPe4P70SKLb5jK8C+4cpi9eKy+dwf77PpoCXk63FJIlWOyhqecAZSKr4AZUME31xpMOOmyL12YvcU70wnXrI8lcfX0uCREFOVWM882bsXwhTdvxoplvOa/eVyGr6EAMCyGkZCoWYPBZZv8kuFAydi+oQkk6dc1JfNocIDK3vYTFsf/ebgujklKRbiHzOXpegfQeJnMg== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:23:20 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 625346 invoked by uid 111); 16 Apr 2026 23:23:20 -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; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:23:20 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:23:19 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: MIDX woes, was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.54.0-rc2 Message-ID: <20260416232319.GA1904316@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <8c1def10-9039-aecd-4ce4-fb4676b47e9b@gmx.de> <20260416051732.GA48541@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260416053435.GA646718@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260416194922.GA1887222@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 Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 01:12:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Looking at the later part of load_multi_pack_index_one() function, > it is full of die() calls, not prepared to degrade gracefully at > all. OK, I confess I did not look past the two goto calls below the lines I touched, since I didn't think we'd be applying it immediately anyway. > The reason why I do not think reword is worth doing is that as far > as this function (i.e., "Here is an MIDX file---please read it and > give me struct multi_pack_index back") is concerned, these error > returns are giving diagnosis on the nature of errors. Sometimes we > cannot learn the length of the file, sometimes we find that the file > is unreasonably short, sometimes it is not sorted properly, etc. > None of the existing "error + cleanup" says "we are continuing > anyway" and that is good. The decision to keep going without using > midx file (or not) belongs to the caller, so if we wanted to say > that, we should say so in the caller, not here. Yep, I agree with all of that. -Peff