Re: [PUB]corrupt repos does not return error with `git fsck`

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I should have looked before replying. It would indeed break "cat-file
> -e" horribly. So the right answer may be to just improve the "bad
> object" message (probably by checking has_sha1_file there and diagnosing
> it either as missing or corrupted).

I should have looked before replying, too ;-)

Yeah, "bad object" sounds as if we tried to parse something that
exists and it was corrupt.  So classifying "a file or a pack index
entry exists where a valid object with that name should reside in"
as "bad object" and "there is no such file or a pack index entry
that would house the named object" as "missing object" _might_ make
things better.

But let's think about it a bit more.  Would it have prevented the
original confusion if we said "missing object"?  I have a feeling
that it wouldn't have.  Faheem was so convinced that the object
named with the 40-hex *must* exist in the cloned repository, and if
we told "missing object" to such a person, it will just enforce the
(mis)conception that the repository is somehow corrupt, when it is
not.

So...