From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/21] Add proper parsing of "tagger" line, but only when thorough_verify is set Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:52:01 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vzm3aig7j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200706090210.36270.johan@herland.net> <200706090218.41941.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johan Herland X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jun 10 10:55:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HxJCe-0006g0-T7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:55:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751416AbXFJIzP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:55:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750816AbXFJIzP (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:55:15 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:52860 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751273AbXFJIzO (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:55:14 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2007 08:55:12 -0000 Received: from rdcg01.wifihubtelecom.net (EHLO [10.140.3.169]) [213.174.113.122] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 10 Jun 2007 10:55:12 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19CHpFeD6NCku0k12wONfFIUEd/rzgpQiJbrcI073 XwoATIDhuO5jX8 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <200706090218.41941.johan@herland.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Johan Herland wrote: > Be explicit about the fact that the "tagger" line is now considered a > mandatory part of the tag object. There are however old tags (from > before July 2005) that don't have a "tagger" line. We therefore consider > the "tagger" line _optional_ when parsing tags without thorough_verify > set. No. The "before July 2005" part is _not_ the reason that we consider this line optional. The fact that it is bad to fail on a fetch, just because you happen to have an invalid tag in your repository, is a good reason not to. The fact that it is bad to fail on a git branch, just because you happen to have an invalid tag in your repository, is a good reason not to. The fact that it is bad to fail on an fsck, just because you happen to have an invalid tag in your repository, is a good reason not to. And yes, if I remember correctly, your original patch did exactly that. The paradigm to follow is: fail gracefully. I could have an invalid _commit_ in my repository, and would still want _every_ Git operation to succeed, _as long_ as it does not touch that bad object. And I damned well want git-fsck to not crash, just because some assumptions are made. Since this is a fundamental critique on your patch series, I will do the detailed review on _this_ patch in another mail. Ciao, Dscho