From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>,
Ilya K <me@0upti.me>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git 2.46.0 crashes when trying to verify-pack outside of a repo
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:52:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqv7zcn39t.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZtXCBcn6WZIHr65b@tanuki> (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 2 Sep 2024 15:47:55 +0200")
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>> I'd personally recommend just requiring the `--object-format=` option,
>> but of course if you want to write pack v5, don't let me stop you.
>
> Well, in the context of this issue I'd definitely aim for the easier fix
> first. Regardless of whether or not we introduce v5, we'd still have to
> address the underlying issue for repositories that do not (yet) have v5
> packfiles.
I would be hesitant to reroactively tightening the rules, though.
If a tool has worked well for those who can and wants to assume a
hash function (because it has been the default, or perhaps because
the user configured the tool as such) even outside a repository,
such a tightening is a regression. If such a change is done to
avoid triggering a data corrupting bug, we may be able to come up
with a valid justification, but on the other hand, to discourage
certain uses of the tool, even if the discouraged use is an insecure
one, feels a bit too opinionated for a tool. It has the same smell
as updating the "md5sum" tool to discourage the use of the function
so that it always exits with 1 (after computing and showing the
hash) or something silly like that.
I am not saying that it is bad for a tool to be opinionated. When
we design a new feature, it is part of the design process to make
sure that use of the feature encourages use of better workflows.
But disabling what has worked to user's expectation so far is a bit
different story.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-03 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-31 6:46 git 2.46.0 crashes when trying to verify-pack outside of a repo Ilya K
2024-09-01 15:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-09-01 23:45 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-09-02 13:18 ` brian m. carlson
2024-09-02 13:47 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-09-03 15:52 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2024-09-04 6:26 ` [PATCH] builtin/index-pack: fix segfaults when running " Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqv7zcn39t.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@0upti.me \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).