From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD5CC0018C for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 22:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E3A22C97 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730825AbgLDWp1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:45:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:53121 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726111AbgLDWp0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:45:26 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE5C11D094; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:44:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=o3lsIUUwPVnHYUNOFsYN52bCR/8=; b=SKmsyL 6YCi1zUXlUkZ74KcUI/q56RCRRHuSo/TBPe9v0aZVXo2Yd33CeSpQrDcjAeIrW8f Q3abLCPkPDlM4DrmlPWPW9JQcv34GSm89UTmZhc3bTLzHXT6zeTwWMzTld38cEdM ztIL/fP1Z+EsTaH8AEvT3KU/lQNGE33BBg1P4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=jy8KWurJcgyxIsTs6yKmJQQRZZAp0rcl 8sQ/bcQ66LGk902NrVshaRlRO0aS9dgX204jb+eXsdITbVrEYoCykLHJgSKeP9bg BcUteTinEGtqGxLDN3rNPd1Mpf8EGk6bk29HWSny19fXQWQRb+e2TUFPPPmFS1rr JkKkeJBENeg= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8478511D093; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:44:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6AB411D08C; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:44:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Samuel Thibault Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch-pack: check result of index_pack_lockfile References: <20201204221457.2873935-1-samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:44:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201204221457.2873935-1-samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> (Samuel Thibault's message of "Fri, 4 Dec 2020 23:14:57 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4BAE10C8-3682-11EB-AE22-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Samuel Thibault writes: > The fetch-pack command may fail (e.g. like in test 15 - fetch into corrupted > repo with index-pack), in which case index_pack_lockfile will > return ... Thanks. It sounds like the same as 6031af38 (fetch-pack: disregard invalid pack lockfiles, 2020-11-30), which came from Message-Id: