klickverbot wrote:
> On 11/18/10 8:18 PM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
>> It deserves the label "data corruption" since Git did the
>> conversion when committing the file, which means that the version
>> stored in the history was corrupted.
>
> Okay, so you I guess you were pretty unlucky since after you turned the
> feature on, Git promptly misdetected one of your files, and you didn't
> notice that when you committed your changes – if you had looked at the
> diff for whatever reason, you would have probably noticed that something
> is wrong (I have this habit of briefly looking what I am checking in,
> but that's probably from my SVN-based OSS work).
>
One of the point here is that I didn't "turn the feature on". It
was turned on by default. Moreover, the first time it happened, I
was importing data from SVN so I didn't look at all the diffs (the
next time it happened, I was adding a new file, so I didn't go
through the whole diff and didn't notice the difference).> In any case, you might be interested in the fact that Mercurial seems to > have real issues with data corruption on Windows, see for example the > following reports: > > http://serverfault.com/questions/91681/mercurial-repository-corruption > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2563178/corrupt-mercurial-repository-cannot-update > Well, at least the second one looks like the user removed some files from the .hg repository (by recursively removing all files whose name fit a certain pattern). This kind of mistake would affect Git too (or any system where the repository is located alongside the sources). Jerome -- mailto:[email protected] http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
