Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> I found this version more readable than Peff's (albeit slightly).
> OK. Do you want to apply with Jonathan's wording, then?
I can do that, as it seems all of us are in agreement.
> There's one subtle thing I didn't mention in the "it is already on stack
> overflow". If you have a version of git which complains about the null
> sha1, then the SO advice is already broken. But if the SO works, then
> you do not have a version of git which complains. So why do you care?
> And the answer is: you may be pushing to a remote with a version of git
> that complains, and which has receive.fsckObjects set (and in many
> cases, that remote is GitHub, since we have had that check on for a
> I don't know if it is worth spelling that out or not.
You could aim to correct each and every wrong suggestions on a site
where misguided leads other misguided, but it is a hopeless task.
>> > After this patch, do you think (in a separate change) it would make
>> > sense for cache-tree.c::update_one() to check for null sha1 and error
>> > out unless GIT_ALLOW_NULL_SHA1 is true? That would let us get rid of
>> > the caveat from the last paragraph.
>> Hmm, interesting thought.
> I think it is worth doing. The main reason I put the original check on
> writing to the index is that it more clearly pinpoints the source of the
> error. If we just died during git-write-tree, then you know somebody
> broke your index, but you don't know which command.
> But checking in both places would add extra protection, and would make
> possible the "relax on read, strict on write" policy that filter-branch
> wants to do.
Yeah, I agree with all of the above.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html